Greenwaldian physics

[Pretzel_Warrior]

The theory that all things in the universe revolve around Glenn.





?w=900&h=675

http://pando.com/2013/12/06/david-and-paul-talk-glenn-and-pierre-how-do-we-know-what-hes-not-releasing-fair-question/

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Ben Franklin was a traitor!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4238838

[Pretzel_Warrior]

2. there is so much to be admired about how Ben Franklin handled it that it puts Snowden/Greenwald

in an even worse light. Thanks for sharing.

[iamthebandfanman]

49. not to mention

his whistleblowing only involved things that affected the American colonies.. he didn't go around giving secrets out to other foreign entities..
which if that had been all snowden had done, instead of informing other countries about secrets ...
would have been more than worth applauding.

snowden started down the right path, and then derailed for his own purposes.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

51. thanks for adding that

I thought about adding some details around what seems wrong about how all of this went down (is still going down) but yours is a very good point.

[JDPriestly]

60. I posted this just above your post.

Benjamin Franklin was still a British citizen when he published the British secrets. Journalists print the news. The secrets were news.

Snowden's revelations were news. Greenwald is and has been a journalist for a while so he published Snowden's revelations. It's called reporting. That's what reporters or journalists do for a living.

Those who criticize Snowden too much are not journalists. They are sycophants. There are lots of sycophants on TV, on the radio and on DU.

The truths that Snowden revealed are unpleasant. That is not his fault. That is the fault of the people who kept the secrets about those truths in the first place. That is the fault of the people in our government who did not ask us whether we wanted our metadata collected.

A lot of people think it is only metadata that is being collected. But that metadata is very revealing to people who know how to read it. That is what many people do not realize.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

64. Ben Franklin didn't flee the scene and ask to be held unaccountable for his decisions

Ben Franklin asked for secrecy and one of his associates chose to send them to the newspaper anyway.

No one was acting as Machiavelli holding the information as a weapon and leaking it sequentially over long periods of time to gain max exposure and profits for them.

These are just some of the things about how Snowden chose to reveal his ill-gotten information that are troubling to me. Snowden, based on his Christmas message, sounds like a paranoid schizophrenic.

[JDPriestly]

82. I disagree.

[Progressive dog]

121. +1 nt

[Pholus]

126. Funny, he didn't exactly present himself to the British for prosecution either.

But thanks for psych analyses doc. All in all it has the same credibility as those Republican congressmens' remote diagnoses of Terry Schiavo.

[treestar]

128. those who criticize Snowden are sycophants?

I see an irony there. Who is to be immune from criticism?

[Mojorabbit]

141. + a gazillion. nt

[JDPriestly]

57. He was not an American. The United States and America did not yet exist.

He was a British citizen. And the secrets he published and provided to interested people were British secrets. Benjamin Franklin was not an early supporter of American independence. He joined the movement a little later. I don't want to exaggerate this fact, but it is true.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

61. he was an American in the sense tha the colonies had limited self-rule

and he was of the colonies. They were his home. His release of these letters to close associates would lead me to believe his loyalty to the crown was wavering.

[JDPriestly]

66. He was a British citizen who owed his loyalty, his fealty to the British King.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

69. you mean the German-English king? who was a bit mad?

yeah....he was from the House of Hanover and wasn't even treated by British in England very fondly.

[JDPriestly]

81. But he was the king.

And Benjamin Franklin was his subject. Just clarifying the history for those who don't think about it from any perspective but that of our time. When we think about history, we need to try to understand the perspective of the historical period.

What Franklin did would have been considered to be treason by the King of England.

[truebluegreen]

137. So what?

You're living up to your screen name with this line of defense.

[treestar]

129. Founding Fathers admitted they could be hung as traitors

If we had not won the war, they would have been. They exposed themselves to that risk. However Eddie will not expose himself to a max ten years in prison.

[anti partisan]

134. And why should he?

How would society benefit from him being in jail?

As for sacrifice, he has indeed given up a lot already, not like that's a prerequisite for being a positive force in the world.

[treestar]

135. Because he has been charged with the crime

Why should anyone have to go to jail if they commit a crime?

there are no exceptions. Ed is not above the law. Why should he be?

[anti partisan]

138. Sidestepping the issue of morality completely

Unless your idea of morality is blind obedience and submission to all who rule over you.

[treestar]

127. Well he was, to Britain

But he had an actual tyranny to fight against. He and his colleagues did in fact succeed. But he would never have done that to America, the country he fought to found! Some things don't require consistency.

Eddie is not going to be starting a new revolution to change the country to a new government. Not from Russia.

[Pholus]

3. The link at the bottom is actually interesting.

Happily, it is more well thought out than the OP's cartoonish barbs and discusses the changing nature of journalism as it attempts to handle new methods of publication.

The most interesting part was where Sirota advocated that the millions of documents should have been disseminated more widely among journalists:

I would agree with you that I think it would have been better had Snowden given a set of documents, identical documents to two or three or four publications to create that check on power. But I think that in general, the more competition there is, the more we can feel more comfortable that no one media organization can use its monopoly power to essentially hide the truth.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

5. agreed about the link being a good one. I'll be referring to that site more often

now that I found it. The one who wrote the piece serves as editor to several writers and has a much more reserved view about Greenwald's intentions--especially considering all of the conflict of interest bullshit that has come out regarding Greenwald's own use of his Snowden Secrets (TM) to enrich himself by promising exclusives for his upcoming book and upcoming media venture.

[JDPriestly]

74. Other newspapers and news magazines including the Washington Post, the NY Times

and Der Spiegel have documents and are releasing them according to Greenwald. I don't want to insult you, but I believe your facts are misleading or untrue. The Washington Post and Der Spiegel have published lots on these stories. The New York Times also. I understand that they have documents and are reviewing them and publishing them or stories based on them. This is not about Greenwald. But he is a personality associated with the story and the documents.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

78. Yes, and they went about it in more upright ways with informants

The point is...a LOT of really good journalists had been working this story and coming out with pretty damning evidence BEFORE Snowden dropped the lottery ticket in Greenwald's lap.

I'm sure there were reasons he chose a fellow libertarian to leak this info to. But I won't pretend to know the inner workings of a paranoid delusional like Snowden.

Point of my post...is Glenn has purposefully tried to take all the air out of the room and make this entire thing about him.

[JDPriestly]

70. As I understand it, Snowden tried to connect with people besides or before Greenwald

about the documents but that those people did not respond or assist him. I don't have the impression that Greenwald was the first person that Snowden tried to contact. I have the impression from what I have read that Greenwald was the first to reciprocate Snowden's contact. Greenwald and Poitras. As I understand it, Poitras had been stopped at airports and had problems having her computer checked when coming into the country. Greenwald, of course, lives with his partner/husband (I'm not sure which.) in Brazil. Again, it is my impression that Greenwald has not been able to bring his partner/husband into the US. It may be that the US is more welcoming to same sex partners than they were a few years ago. I don't know about that. But I think it is unfair to accuse Greenwald of somehow stealing the show. I think he was just the first or among a very few who welcomed Snowden's attempts to come forward.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

83. that's one mythology in circulation

[Hissyspit]

106. Funny what is considered hard fact

and what is suddenly considered "mythology."

Barton Gellman, writing for The Washington Post, says his first "direct contact" was on May 16, 2013.[86] According to Gellman, Snowden approached Greenwald after the Post declined to guarantee publication of all 41 of the PRISM PowerPoint slides within 72 hours and publish online an encrypted code allowing Snowden the ability to later prove that he was the source.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

107. that was many months after Snowden's first contact with Greenwald

according to Greenwald's own words.

[Hissyspit]

109. Yeah, I know. Poster said "contact people besides ... Greenwald."

[Pholus]

119. You've noticed the intent has never been to have a fair discussion.

It has been to shove a narrative down our throats about all this.

If Snowden and Greenwald are not literally flawless in thought word and deed, then anything they say must be dismissed without examination.

That's always struck me as being a desperate angle to try to control the debate without having to give credence to the specifics. That's because the specifics are literally indefensible.

Just remember though, "Sciencia est potentia" doesn't say crap about Terra being the only motivator to make sure that every citizen in this country has a docket that looks like a permanent government stooge walks 3 feet behind them at all times. The only thing missing are the little jars with our scents....and biometrics is getting a LOT of money these days to make them unnecessary.

[JDPriestly]

120. Thanks.

Seems that former STASI (East German surveillance police) are working at the STASI archives.

Some people never quit snooping.

The latest revelations also throw up uncomfortable questions for the German president, Joachim Gauck, who was the inaugural commissioner for the Stasi archives between 1990 and 2000. In his 1991 book The Stasi Files, Gauck had defended re-hiring old Stasi personnel: "We couldn't have done without their specialist knowledge of certain branches and the Stasi's archiving system." Originally hired on short-term contracts, Gauck had personally lobbied to make their jobs permanent in 1997.

Klaus Schroeder, a historian at Berlin's Free University who looked into the deployment of Stasi at the agency in 2007, told the Guardian: "Ultimately, the responsibility for giving these people uncontrolled access to high-profile files lies with Gauck."

Jahn, the current commissioner, also used his interview in Tagesspiegel to dismisses comparisons between the US National Security Agency and the Stasi: "I find it absurd to equate the NSA and the Stasi – it's a smokescreen. It doesn't help us in clearing up the current intelligence scandals, and it trivialises the work of the Stasi. They didn't just gather information but also lock up those who criticised the state. But the NSA debate has shown how important it is to raise your voice when basic human rights are being violated."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/27/stasi-officers-still-employed-east-german-secret-police-archives

The "my country right or wrong" or on DU the "my President right or wrong" mentality makes people feel very smug and self-righteous. Ignorant people with little experience are particularly susceptible to that philosophy ("my country right or wrong&quot . That is why it is very attractive to Republicans. They cannot imagine that their country could be taken over by someone or some group willing to oppress anyone who has a different religion, international friendships or family members in other countries or anyone who has ideas that simply differ from those of the group in power.

But that kind of political oppression is, over the course of history, arguably the norm. Democracy and tolerance are the exception.

That is why we cannot allow our country to amass so much information about us. It is extremely dangerous to mix this global information database and political power. Very dangerous. I can't understand how people can be so naive as to not understand the danger of it. The best theory I have come up with is that these naive people think that the situation of today, the democracy and freedom we have enjoyed until the past few years, will last forever. They do not see the temptation to grab power that is inherent in the possession of the vast database that the NSA is acquiring. It is chilling to me.

Does it take a little imagination to understand the dangers in this NSA surveillance and collection of our metadata? A tiny bit, but not much, not if you read any history at all or observe what is going on every day in areas of our planet.

I just hope that we Americans don't have to learn the lesson the East Germans learned with STASI.

Privacy is extremely important. You can't have democracy or freedom without it.

[Pholus]

123. It is a corruption of what supposedly the strength of America was.

The ability to re-invent one's self -- to be allowed to take a risk and fail and to rise again -- was constantly touted as a strength of this country.

Now we want permanent data storage. Someone's words, deeds and private life can follow them forever and be recalled at the whim of whoever can force their way into access. That old worry about grade school -- about how it goes on your permanent record -- has been made manifest.

It isn't secured either and I think that's by design -- I highly doubt that Snowden was a magical figure with unprecedented access, he's just the one who went public instead of playing the game for fun and personal profit.

Exactly what is "Collect it all" for again? It demonstrably is not to prevent Terra -- those "fifty-four" plots literally evaporated under ProPublica scrutiny. So in the end, there are no public documented successes of the program. What's it for?

"Sciencia est Potentia" That's what.

The Reverend King learned what it is like when someone in government is unhappy with you and can tap the hell out of you.

The MIC faction of the USG just doesn't know who the next Reverend King is and wants to make sure that we're ready for them...

[Aerows]

4. Wouldn't it be nice

if he spent more time trying to help us spend less on the military and more on our infrastructure in the United States?

[Cali_Democrat]

8. Greenwald is a libertarian. That's why he spoke at the CATO institute

Libertarians don't believe in increasing infrastructure spending.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. You can tell a libertarian neighborhood by how shitty their streets are

they like to live in unincorprated areas of urban areas so they can practically live like Ma and Pa Kettle while on the doorstep of all the great things that public infrastructure has to offer them. selfish little shits.

[anti partisan]

12. Ironic how some people are so inclined to bash Greenwald...

that they even jump at the opportunity to bash him for being something he clearly is not.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

20. he's clearly a libertarian. I'm sorry you cannot see that.

[anti partisan]

11. Greenwald is NOT a libertarian. Why do people keep spreading disinformation?

This is what he spoke at CATO about:
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies

This is what he believes about single payer healthcare and social spending:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/10542163594

Now, still think he's a "libertarian"?

[whatchamacallit]

14. It's been refuted a million times, but foaming haters are impervious to fact n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

22. Perhaps you're right. Greenwald isn't a libertarian, he's a republican

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/glenn-greenwald-supported-president-bush-as-he-signed-the-patriot-act/

[anti partisan]

28. More slander?

He never said he was a Republican, and offered up that recollection of his mistake as part of his learning process, something honorable to do. As he had never defended Bush publicly, he could have never volunteered the information and gotten away with it.

[Maedhros]

55. Your deliberate misinformation has been successfully refuted multiple times in the past.

It's telling that you continue using the same discredited talking points, despite how disingenuous it makes you appear.

[sabrina 1]

71. Greenwald is one of the best journalists we have in this country right now. While he was trashing

Bush he was totally supported on this site. IF you want to attack him, do it honestly or you have zero credibiity. He is not a Libertarian or a Republican and this smear has been refuted over and over again.

I KNOW that there was a contract to smear him by one of the Big Banks, BOA, and the Security Contractor bidding on the contract was HB Gary.

We read the emails when Anonymous exposed them and most people were outraged that this is going on. That Wall St is PAYING to spread lies about journalists and bloggers, lies even about their FAMILIES.

It was disgusting to discover where all these smears are actually coming from.

Where advertently or inadvertently you are contributing to one of the worst aspects of our political arena, by repeating smears bought and paid for by corrupt Wall St institutions in order to keep them from telling the people the truth.

I notice btw, that the OP and others who attack people like Greenwald NEVER talk about the substance of what he writes. They just repeat the same old smears, over and over again. Bargain Basement Smears. We've heard them so often and seen them refuted so often, and all it does is make people even more disgusted than they were and provides MORE not LESS support for the targets of these smears.

[anti partisan]

87. Great points!

Considering how comparatively little of a threat Greenwald was before, and still instigated a smear campaign ( http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/palantir/ ), imagine how much the national security industry must be paying for a similar smear campaign on Greenwald now. This isn't based in paranoid thinking, but rather in reality as was shown by the leaked documents.

[SidDithers]

90. ...

Sid

[U4ikLefty]

93. +1000

[Luminous Animal]

26. Plenty of Democrats have spoke at CATO. But you already knew that.

[msanthrope]

139. Did they write white paper for them? Go to the donor's benefit dinner? Greenwald did. nt

[Hissyspit]

95. Bullshit.

That's been answered again and again and again.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

124. So did Ron Wyden.

You know, Democrat, Oregon? Ringing any bells?

[Aerows]

142. That doesn't negate my point

that we should spend more energy working to get our infrastructure fixed, which would provide American jobs, too. Unless, of course, you want to disagree with me for the sole reason that I agree with Greenwald on the NSA issue.

[whatchamacallit]

6. Another flaming bag on the doorstep

[Pretzel_Warrior]

7. try reading the article link

you may change your mind

[Pholus]

10. No. I agree. That the flaming bag happens to contain...

something useful as plant nutrients doesn't excuse either the sack or the fire.

[SidDithers]

13. DU rec...

For pissing off all the right people.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

130. The 'right' people are pissed off enough at Greenwald that they

have desperately stooped to repeating garbage that most people know is false.

Looks like it is an ever shrinking minority though as more people realize WHY smear campaigns are being paid for by the big banks.

Thanks Anonymous for proving what many suspected. Now there is absolute proof of how our system is corrupted by money paid to try to hide the wrong doing of those who want to control this country.

Why do you want to 'piss off' people you don't agree with Sid? Why would anyone waste time trying to do that? You know it doesn't work, so why not try to post some facts to refute those you are in so much disagreement with, which is a majority of DUers btw.

I have never seen you correct anything Greenwald has stated, eg. Why not do that and maybe you COULD change a mind or two rather than trying to 'piss people off'. Imho, someone would have to be pretty pissed off themselves to spend THEIR time trying to piss others off.

I guess Greenwald, if he cared, could truthfully claim he has managed to 'piss off' all the Right people, simply by telling the truth. That's the BEST way to piss off people you don't agree with.

[SidDithers]

131. Too funny...

Pure comedy gold, sabrina.

Sid

[anti partisan]

132. It would be funny if it wasn't actually happening

2011 leaks proved that it was happening.

[anti partisan]

16. Freerepublic? (nt)

[Pretzel_Warrior]

17. He's a Me-wing journalist

He has some serious journalists questioning what it is he's really up to. Maybe some of you progressive fans of his should too.

[anti partisan]

18. Very informative post

I feel very swayed by the logic you put behind your reasoning.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

19. I just like comedy. And Brian Regan as well as Glenn Greenwald are sheer comedy

Brian Regan does it intentionally, though.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

24. it's not a slang. I'm a progressive in EVERY SINGLE test I take on the issue. the point is...

some progressives are being swayed to believe everything this guy says despite his obvious deficiencies.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

44. make a substantive argument somewhere. anywwhere on this thread..

and maybe you will be deserving of, as you put it, a more "substantive rebuttal".

[JDPriestly]

76. Don't try to kill the messenger.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

79. I'm trying to expose a charlatan

a shape shifter.

[JDPriestly]

80. In what sense do you think he is a "shape shifter"?

I'm not familiar with that term.

[Union Scribe]

91. Ah, the same wing as you, then.

Because all I see you post are "look at meeeee!" threads.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

94. because you only notice those. I post on many subjects

including contributing discussion to other people's threads. So your biased opinion is duly noted.

[Cali_Democrat]

23. Left wing journalist?

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/glenn-greenwald-supported-president-bush-as-he-signed-the-patriot-act/

[Cali_Democrat]

31. Greenwald had his lips planted firmly on GWB's behind

now he constantly attacks Obama and you want me to consider him a left wing journalist?

Whatever, dude.

[Luminous Animal]

111. Yes Indeed. Lets ignore the 3 books her wrote criticizing GWB's behind.

[anti partisan]

30. In his career as a journalist

He has never defended the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act.

The fact that he was willing to give the President a chance during his time as a lawyer offers nothing to dispute him being a "left-wing journalist".

He made a mistake in judgment, and admitted to it, something he didn't have to do.

[pnwmom]

34. He's a libertarian, which is not compatible with being a "left wing journalist."

Libertarians have far right wing economic beliefs -- barely any daylight between their economic policies and those of the teabaggers.

[anti partisan]

40. GG supports far-right beliefs like single payer healthcare and massively increased social spending

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/10542163594

How many stinking times do I have to repeat that he is not a libertarian?

[pnwmom]

45. How many other writers from the libertarian Cato Institute do you follow?

[anti partisan]

50. He's not FROM the libertarian CATO Institute

He wrote one article FOR them, about a topic that many progressives and libertarians agree on. Can you please read the article before continuing to slander him about it?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

47. nowhere does Greenwald actually say he supports single payer

he just says it would be weird to call someone who supported single payer a libertarian.

And by the way....he really does play those idiotic word games of semantics. Even with colleagues.

[anti partisan]

62. Are you really being serious? (nt)

[pnwmom]

32. Libertarians are NOT left wing or progressive.

They are a combination of extreme right wing on economic issues, and left wing on social issues.

[anti partisan]

35. As Glenn Greenwald is demonstrably not a libertarian, whom are you referring to? (nt)

[pnwmom]

38. He's demonstrably a journalist who writes for the libertarian Cato Institute. n/t

[anti partisan]

46. Have you read what he has written for the CATO institute?

Maybe you should:
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies

A progressive would never write something talking about how drug decriminalization is successful in Portugal.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

88. you mean he's a lawyer who decided to write fiction like John Grisham.

[anti partisan]

92. I actually find his article quite factual, as it is based in facts. (nt)

[pnwmom]

39. He's a journalist who writes for the libertarian Cato Institute. n/t

[anti partisan]

48. The stance he took in his article for the CATO institute would be considered left-wing

Here, read it:
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies

[pnwmom]

73. Libertarians are a weird combination of left and right wing beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart

[anti partisan]

84. I know what a libertarian is, but Glenn Greenwald is not one.

By the logic of "he spoke at CATO so he must be a libertarian", you can also say, "he spoke to the Socialism 2013 Conference so he must be a socialist". http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/07/glenn-greenwald-spoke-via-skype-to-the-socialism-2013-conference-in-chicago-on-june-27/

What we do know is that he is a civil libertarian (think ACLU), and he supports single-payer health care and massively increased social spending.

[pnwmom]

86. He's accepted their dirty money and lent his name and reputation to them. n/t

[anti partisan]

89. I'd do the same as Glenn had. It's about supporting a single cause, not the think tank.

I guess I'm a libertarian socialist too, just like Glenn.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

105. undoubtedly that's why he performed at their donor's benefit gathering and defended Citizens United

truly a progressive's progressive.

[anti partisan]

112. More misleading slander

By perform, you mean give a speech about his topic of interest, which happens to be well-received by both libertarians and socialists.

And yes, he does defend the Citizens United decision as a matter of free speech, which is the same position the ACLU takes. https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/fixing-citizens-united-will-break-constitution

[Cha]

63. My my.. you're getting them flustered!

"screw you.." reminds me of greenwald.. bully-victim.

Libertarian a$$hole..

snip//

"After listening to Chris Hayes and reading that one of his references to the story about Obama assassinations was Glenn Greenwald, I perused many of Greenwald's anti-Obama articles cleverly disguised as "civil libertarian" and wonder how anyone in the progressive movement can take Glenn Greenwald seriously. Greenwald admits to being a civil libertarian, much in the mold of Ayn Rand, Rand Paul and most libertarians on the far right. After doing a stint at a Wall Street corporate law firm (Wachtel, Lipton) he strikes it out on his own by representing white supremacist Matthew Hale, who was the leader of the World Church of the Creator, and is now doing forty years in prison for authorizing a hit on a federal judge. Greenwald has not written a <em>single</em> article that has been favorable toward the Obama Administration, and he was one of the leading voices pushing this disproven idea that Obama is "the same as Bush" to try to undermine Obama's support in his progressive base. The conservative magazine <emForbes</em> indicates Greenwald is "one of the 25 most influential liberals in the media," despite his libertarian views and admission that he is not a liberal.

With this backdrop, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Glenn Greenwald is a conservative/libertarian mole within the progressive movement with the sole mission of undermining the movement. Specifically, with respect to authorized killing of Al Qaeda operatives: since when does one need a trial when one admits in writing continuously that they are part of Al Qaeda and are found to be engaged in an operational role in killing Americans? When have we <em>ever</em> asked on the battlefield whether one is authorized to defend oneself against the guy with the gun shooting at you, who is dressed in enemy gear and who has promised to kill you? Should we do as Greenwald suggests, and call a "time out" during the heat of battle and have a civil trial to determine whether this guy really is what he has demonstrated to be? I am all for due process when it make practical sense, but during the heat of battle when someone is actively trying to kill you, I think defending oneself first in battle and then defending oneself in court later if necessary appears to be the appropriate course of action. Maybe we should put Greenwald on the battlefield and see if he <em>really</em> thinks it's practical to call a time-out and go to court. Only in the wildest fantasy of an obsessed lawyer would such a thought even be possible, and Greenwald appears to be obsessed with second-guessing commanders on the ground, even though he himself could never really imagine what it is like to be on the battlefield of war."

end snip//

http://www.thenation.com/letter/greenwald-conservativelibertarian-mole#

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4239442

[anti partisan]

68. If a wacky letter to the editor is all you got, you ain't got nothing at all (nt)

[TheKentuckian]

143. Playing "gotcha" with a letter from some nitwit who doesn't understand what a civil libertarian is

in a lame and wildly desperate effort to smear.

What is wrong with being a civil libertarian? I assume you oppose the ACLU? Have some problems with say the Bill of Rights?

What kind of fool isn't a civil libertarian?

[davidpdx]

25. OMG how dare you say something nasty about Greenwald

He's a god.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

52. lol. yeah. it's weird all the low count posters here on this thread.

[SidDithers]

75. Newbies, surely...nt

Sid

[Cha]

67. You mean like..

"the facts"?

[Hissyspit]

97. Nonsense. But you know that.

You used the word "nasty," yourself as opposed to "critical." Why?

Greenwald is open to criticism as anyone is. But there is a difference between valid criticism andfalsehood, baseless talking point, dog-whistle bigotry, ad Hominem, just plain way-off-the-point bone-headed arguments.

I hardly think Greenwald is a god.

[davidpdx]

118. I'm referring to those calling DUers shills for daring to criticize him

and yes it has and continues to happen (this was a post in another thread that had nothing to do with me). My entire post was sarcasm to that point.

(And if you are going to ask why not alert them, my answer is why bother. A jury will give a 0-6 hide in a heartbeat even if it is against the rules. If you have $5 handy I'll gladly prove it to you).

[OilemFirchen]

122. Though emoprogs profoundly lack a sense of humor...

"Greenwald is open to criticism as anyone is " is a fucking gut-buster.

[Hissyspit]

140. More nonsense.

[Cha]

36. So we're not the only ones(those of us on

DU) who've noticed glenn greenwald thinks his shit doesn't stink and his bully/victim aggression gives him "carte blanche".. to lie whenever it suits him(all the time).

Libertarian a$$hole..

snip//

"After listening to Chris Hayes and reading that one of his references to the story about Obama assassinations was Glenn Greenwald, I perused many of Greenwald's anti-Obama articles cleverly disguised as "civil libertarian" and wonder how anyone in the progressive movement can take Glenn Greenwald seriously. Greenwald admits to being a civil libertarian, much in the mold of Ayn Rand, Rand Paul and most libertarians on the far right. After doing a stint at a Wall Street corporate law firm (Wachtel, Lipton) he strikes it out on his own by representing white supremacist Matthew Hale, who was the leader of the World Church of the Creator, and is now doing forty years in prison for authorizing a hit on a federal judge. Greenwald has not written a <em>single</em> article that has been favorable toward the Obama Administration, and he was one of the leading voices pushing this disproven idea that Obama is "the same as Bush" to try to undermine Obama's support in his progressive base. The conservative magazine <emForbes</em> indicates Greenwald is "one of the 25 most influential liberals in the media," despite his libertarian views and admission that he is not a liberal.

With this backdrop, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Glenn Greenwald is a conservative/libertarian mole within the progressive movement with the sole mission of undermining the movement. Specifically, with respect to authorized killing of Al Qaeda operatives: since when does one need a trial when one admits in writing continuously that they are part of Al Qaeda and are found to be engaged in an operational role in killing Americans? When have we <em>ever</em> asked on the battlefield whether one is authorized to defend oneself against the guy with the gun shooting at you, who is dressed in enemy gear and who has promised to kill you? Should we do as Greenwald suggests, and call a "time out" during the heat of battle and have a civil trial to determine whether this guy really is what he has demonstrated to be? I am all for due process when it make practical sense, but during the heat of battle when someone is actively trying to kill you, I think defending oneself first in battle and then defending oneself in court later if necessary appears to be the appropriate course of action. Maybe we should put Greenwald on the battlefield and see if he <em>really</em> thinks it's practical to call a time-out and go to court. Only in the wildest fantasy of an obsessed lawyer would such a thought even be possible, and Greenwald appears to be obsessed with second-guessing commanders on the ground, even though he himself could never really imagine what it is like to be on the battlefield of war."

end snip//

http://www.thenation.com/letter/greenwald-conservativelibertarian-mole#

Good to know.. mahalo Pretzel

[Pretzel_Warrior]

42. thank you for your link as well. WOW! all I can say is..

[Cha]

54. Like I say..

good to know he doesn't fool quite a few people.

That Bully/Victim/ mentality got old years ago.. . Something else that got real old is bush=President Obama.. only a lazy idiot would buy that shite.

And, in 2014 during campaign election time, when Democrats are fighting to keep the Senate & Take Back the House.. Greenwald's agenda and his fucking message won't be on DU. It will be at the bottom of the sewer where it belongs during that time.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

59. from your lips to the Voters' ears!! let's turn the country blue

Obamacare may just do that. Even if it's only 51% to 49% in each state...just get enough to see the sense of what ACA and other programs have done to put us on a better path.

We still need tax reform.
We still need immigration reform.

[anti partisan]

43. It's good to know that you accept a letter to the editor as fact at face value

Despite that it is suggesting a wild conspiracy theory which actually uses a far-left position as supporting evidence that he is actually a rightist. Read the second paragraph and tell me what is conservative about the position he has taken?

[DeSwiss]

56. ''When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are ruled by criminals.'' ~Anon

I'm not worried about Glenn. He's harmless compared to the assholes who're killing people indiscriminately and listening into every aspect of our lives.

For the life of me I cannot abide anyone who'll stand around pointing fingers at the very people trying to save your freedoms.

Ingrates, every last one.............

[Pretzel_Warrior]

72. what crime was exposed?

[PoliticalPothead]

101. A crime that was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/national-security-agency-phones-judge-101203.html

[Pretzel_Warrior]

102. federal judge ruled differently. and if it makes it to supreme court

I bet they will rule it is constitutional.

Not the same as breaking an actual statute on the books. I don't think that has occurred. So the point I was responding to is invalid.

[U4ikLefty]

58. Kill the messenger...how original. nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

65. Exposing a charlatan. How original.

Exposing a carpetbagging mountebank.

[U4ikLefty]

85. charlatans tell lies (like the NSA and politicians) and whistlblowers expose uncomfotable truths.

People who take risks are often hated for shaking things up.

[RufusTFirefly]

77. Here's Greenwald speaking at the Socialism 2013 Conference in Chicago

Glenn Greenwald to the Socialism 2013 Conference in Chicago on June 27

Socialists are secret supporters of the Cato Institute, I guess.



Keep shooting the messenger, lemmings.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

96. he spoke via skype from Brazil about the Snowden Affair

I watched excerpts throughout the 50+ minutes, and he doesn't talk about socialist issues. THe group was nice enough to give him a platform to rant about the Snowden story.

That's it. What does the fact that an ultra-progressive extreme group like socialists had him talk about his "big story" have to do with anything?

[Hissyspit]

98. What does him talking about marijuana at Cato have to do with anything?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

104. oh but he did so much more for Cato than that. Don't let Greenwald's own humility/deceit fool you

http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/

[Hissyspit]

108. I saw all that when it was first posted months and months ago.

Pretty weak soup.

[shaayecanaan]

99. "ultra progressive extreme group like socialists"

A revealing little tidbit. They really have got to you haven't they?

[Marr]

100. I really hope you get paid for this.

If you're doing it for free, you need a therapist.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

103. I'm not getting paid for this.

What type of therapist do you suggest for a person of my condition?

[LiberalLovinLug]

110. A very very very patient one

And one that has to be prepared for such a complicated soul. One that when they start revealing their secrets they then suddenly start bashing themselves and calling themselves a traitor for doing so.

[cantbeserious]

113. Ad Hominem Attacks - The Worst Of The Logical Fallacies

eom

[anti partisan]

114. I call it the Double Fallacy Attack

1. Use straw man or ad hominem fallacies to discredit the source/messenger (Snowden/Greenwald)
2. Use an implicit genetic fallacy to discourage the discussion of their message

Never mind that the whole argument about the character of Snowden/Greenwald is one big red herring!

So many fallacies it's hard to keep up with them all.

[cantbeserious]

115. Best To Keep Calling Them Out - Other Members Might Catch On And End The Logical Non Sense

eom

[DisgustipatedinCA]

116. You're a little unhinged tonight, spittle flying and everything.

It's kind of fun to watch.

[Ichingcarpenter]

117. 117 replies and only 8 thought it was worth

its spittle.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

136. It's a thread whose only message is "I personally hate Glenn Greenwald"

There's no news story to report...it's just one poster who wants us all to know how much he hates Greenwald, as if it matters at all.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

125. News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising. Lord Northcliffe

[WorseBeforeBetter]

133. Alright, alright, you can be a simple-minded Manichean, too.

I imagine the other DUer so dubbed by Greenwald won't mind sharing the title.