Greenwald: CHENEY SHOULD BE IN PRISON, Not On 'Meet The Press'

[Segami]

In Sunday's interview with host Chuck Todd, Cheney claimed that CIA torture "worked" and announced he would "do it again in a minute" if given the opportunity.

Greenwald is right. The refusal of Obama to prosecute our Iraq war criminals is the original sin of his administration:

"The reason why Dick Cheney is able to go on 'Meet The Press' instead of being where he should be—which is in the dock at The Hague or in a federal prison—is because President Obama and his administration made the decision not to prosecute any of the people who implemented this torture regime despite the fact that it was illegal and criminal," Greenwald said in an interview with HuffPost Live's Alyona Minkovski.

In Sunday's interview with host Chuck Todd, Cheney claimed that CIA torture "worked" and announced he would "do it again in a minute" if given the opportunity.

As human rights advocates and international law experts have renewed their call for prosecutions against former Bush administration officials who ordered the CIA to torture detained terrorism suspects in the aftermath of 9/11, Greenwald said that whether tortured "worked" is irrelevant—"nobody should be interested in that"—and argued that much of the blame for the fact that Cheney still has the liberty to go on national television and brag about violating domestic and international laws should be placed at the feet of President Obama.

"When you send the signal, as the Obama administration did, that torture is not a crime that ought to be punished, it's just a policy dispute that you argue about on Sunday shows, of course it emboldens torturers like Dick Cheney to go around and say, 'What I did was absolutely right,'" Greenwald said.


http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/12/19/greenwald-dick-cheney-should-be-federal-prison-not-meet-press

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/12/greenwald-cheney-should-be-prison-not-meet

[msanthrope]

1. Since Glenn is such a fantastic lawyer, I think he should file a federal citizen's complaint

with the DOJ and try to have Dick Cheney charged criminally. If nothing else, it is at least a decent try.

He could also take on the case of any one torture victim, pursue civilly, and attempt to persuade the federal prosecutor to file concomitant criminal charges. I did this once....and it was tough, but something eventually got done.

Cheney should be in jail.

[JEB]

2. Sounds like you are the one who should give that a try.

[sabrina 1]

8. Not to mention the fact that Greenwald is now a Journalist, no longer practicing law,

because perhaps he knows that speaking the truth through the press is a far more effective way to get things done.

It is a ridiculous and childish thing to admonish one of the few journalists with the courage to speak out strongly against Cheney whose puppets have already targeted Greenwald for smear campaigns, rather than praise him for having the guts to do what he has always done, tell the truth.

[msanthrope]

10. But Glenn has legal experience with torture victims....when the Nazi group he was representing

was sued because they helped foment a terror attack against two Hispanic workers, he argued that it merely "free speech" to threaten and encourage violence.

So, he'd be able to anticipate Cheney's arguments. I agree with him that Cheney should be in jail.

[Hissyspit]

147. Oh jeez

[sabrina 1]

5. So he's wrong about Cheney being a war criminal who belongs in the dock at the

Hague then?

Okay, that is your opinion.

I agree with Glenn Greenwald who has the guts to publicly state what our own government should have done long ago.

Cheney has publicly stated he is a War Criminal on National TV, not just this time, but several times in the past.

That he is still roaming around free is a disgrace to this nation.

[Iggo]

7. He's Glenn Greenwald, so he has to be wrong.

That's how it works with them.

[sabrina 1]

12. I know. Torturers are given a pass when it comes to journalists saying

something that might implicate, however truthfully, 'our team' in the protection of those torturers. It can hardly be denied, so the best course of action to try to divert culpability to the MESSENGER.

And all that does is to confirm that culpability.

[msanthrope]

13. No--GG is right. Cheney belongs in jail. I think GG could put him there, as his prior legal

experience with torture victims could help.

[sabrina 1]

21. Greenwaqld IS helping to put him there! He is doing HIS job as a journalist

since he no longer practices law which of course you know. The power of the press far exceeds the power of any individual lawyer. THAT is why Greenwald is now a journalist, with International appeal.

You are an attorney, practicing unlike Greenwald I presume. Why don't you put him there, Greenwald would totally support you using his power as a journalist I'm sure.

[whatchamacallit]

118. You are appropriately named n/t

[riderinthestorm]

134. Misanthrope, not msanthrope. I've always thought the misspelling hilarious (and revealing) nt

[Octafish]

14. Why don't you volunteer your talents to help Greenwald?

It's what you wanted for Don Siegelman.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024230939#post37

[msanthrope]

17. I don't work with Neo Nazi civil lawsuit defenders.

Shuler got a lawyer, didn't he?

[ReRe]

59. "Neo Nazi civil lawsuit defenders"...

... WTF are you talking about? Respectfully, msanthrope. Was GG a defense lawyer? I thought he was a Constitutional Lawyer. Thanks.

[msanthrope]

69. He was the civil attorney for the National Alliance and Matt Hale. He may call himself

a constitutional lawyer, but when I ask his acolytes to mention a case where he defended the constitution, they really can't name one.

Details...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

[sabrina 1]

80. In your view, Defense Attorneys commit crimes by defending unpopular clients?

All of them? Or just Glenn Greenwald?

As to the Constitutional right he was defending?

He defended the Constitutional Right of every American to a DEFENSE by providing that defense!

Or are you claiming SOME people do not have that right?

[msanthrope]

85. Um...the Nazi IP case wasn't a 6th amendment case. 1) It was an IP case.

2) It was civil, not criminal.

He was defending the rights of all Americans by defending a Nazi trademark? That TOTALLY made me laugh.

I'm actually serious here....may I use that in a class I am teaching?

[sabrina 1]

91. So there is no right to a CIVIL DEFENSE if you are unpopular? Where is this

exception written down? I asked you before, provide us with the statute that denies unpopular people a CIVIL DEFENSE. Thank you.

[msanthrope]

95. oh lordy....look, if GG wants to voluntarily defend the money interests of Nazi's, and you want to

defend that defense, Sabrina, have at it. But I get to say something.....

I think defending the money interests of Nazi's against people of color is despicable.

Helps to explain GG's racism, though.....

And yet few problems are more pressing. Over the past several years, illegal immigrants have poured into the United States by the millions. The wave of illegals entering the country is steadily increasing. The people living in the border states of California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico know this flow has to be drastically slowed and then halted. The situation is so dire in that region that the Democratic Governors of Arizona and New Mexico were forced to declare States of Emergency as a result of the flow of illegals into their states and the resulting, massive problems which it brings.

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.

SNIP......


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.

SNIP..

The real irony here is that the problem of illegal immigration is actually one of the very few of the ever-dwindling number of issues that has the opportunity to forge common ground among factions of voters which are, these days, engaged in a ceaseless war with each other. Being worried, and outraged, about illegal immigration is not confined to the extreme precincts of conservatism. Middle-class suburban voters whose primary concerns are local and pragmatic, rather than ideological, know the danger which illegal immigration poses to their communities and to their states, and they want something done about it.

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

[sabrina 1]

97. So you were just making stuff up. I knew that, you have done it before, but

it's always good to let other people see the depths to which Greenwald Hate has descended. To the point of attempting to characterize a legal defense of an unpopular client as a CRIME.

Thanks, I wanted to let people see this for themselves.

It truly is reprehensible to try to conflate representing a client with supporting that client's beliefs, I have never really seen much that is more reprehensible especially coming from someone who claims to be an attorney themselves.

[Luminous Animal]

120. Check out my posts #115 and #117. Also, I think you will find this interesting.

The ACLU defended Hale's efforts to obtain a law license in IL.

Aclu Sides With Supremacist On Right To Obtain Law License

White supremacist Matthew Hale's bid to practice law in Illinois has received a boost from the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, which has filed a legal brief in support of Hale's petition to obtain a law license.

In a legal motion accepted Monday by the state Supreme Court, the ACLU argues that denying Hale a law license on the basis of racist beliefs is a violation of his 1st Amendment rights.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-08-12/news/9908120284_1_law-license-aclu-first-time-hale

[sabrina 1]

128. Thank I will check out your posts. I did ask if the poster felt the same way

about the ACLU who have defended some of the most reprehensible characters, thankfully for our system of justice. But all I get are diversions.

Not surprised they would have taken up that case. Much as we might detest certain people, I am grateful for our system of justice because without it, we are nothing but a third world dictatorship where convictions without a defense, and that is what I am getting from this poster, are the norm.

[Luminous Animal]

117. Here you go (and the earliest association I can find between Greenwald and Hale)

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-02-08/news/0004010077_1_matt-hale-solicitation-world-church

A Cook County Circuit Court judge today dismissed a lawsuit filed by Illinois Atty. Gen. Jim Ryan against white supremacist Matt Hale and his World Church of the Creator.

Ryan filed the suit in July, alleging that Hale's group is an unregistered charity. The civil suit contended that Hale's organization was subject to the state's Solicitation for Charity Act.

But today, Judge Julia M. Nowicki released a written ruling stating that the act is vague and unconstitutional, violating the defendants' 1st and 14th Amendment rights -- freedom of speech and due process, respectively.

….

Hale's attorney, Glenn Greenwald, said Hale is very happy with the decision, "but also very surprised that the judge was courageous enough to signify that all citizens, including Matt Hale, have the right to the same constitutional protections." Neither Hale nor his attorney, who practices in New York, was present at today's hearing at the Richard J. Daley Cente

The IL AG appealed to the IL Supreme Court. Greenwald defended Hale on Constitutional grounds in that venue, as well.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-03-22/news/0103220049_1_matt-hale-file-world-church

SPRINGFIELD — The Illinois attorney general's office and a white supremacist group clashed Wednesday before the Illinois Supreme Court on whether the group is a charity that must register with the state.

The World Church of the Creator, headed by Matt Hale of East Peoria, contended that the state's Solicitation for Charity Act was unconstitutionally vague--a position already upheld by a Cook County judge--and questioned whether Atty. Gen. Jim Ryan selectively enforced the law to quash the group's activities.


Hale's attorney, Glenn Greenwald of New York, argued that provisions in the law that call for patriotic, philanthropic and benevolent organizations to register as charities are ill defined. Greenwald contended that potential penalties for failing to abide by the law--such as a permanent ban on raising funds--are too severe if a group guesses wrong about how the law applies to it.

"Is it constitutional to have a law in which you don't know you have fallen afoul of it until you've been sued, and even then you have severe questions? I don't think so," Hale said after the hearing.

[sabrina 1]

129. Stop introducing facts here!

I wonder, are the attacks on Greenwald for representing a client in a CIVIL CASE, applicable to ALL attorneys who engage in such defenses?

I've tried to get an answer, but it's like pulling teeth.

So my conclusion is, this is all part of the smear campaign to try to silence Greenwald, most likely since we see THIS particular smear so often, no matter how often it has been debunked, that his comes from some Think Tank, probably not HB Gary, but no doubt someone else got that contract.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

16. If your personal injury caseload isn't too heavy, you should give it a shot.

I've seen you talk about yourself, which is why I know you're a world class attorney. And if I'm not mistaken, you're still practicing. Post the complaint here once you've filed it, you'll have our appreciation.

[msanthrope]

18. I don't do PI. I do criminal defense. Unlike GG, I've never defended a torturer, and then claimed

it was a first amendment right in civil court to avoid paying damages to the victims.

Glenn's right....Cheney should be in jail. But he's a bit hypocritical if he thinks no one from the CCR or no lawyer who can work Lexis can't recall the time when he defended violence.

[sabrina 1]

22. Greenwald did not 'defend a torturer' which you have been told many times here. Why are you

trying to smear one of the few people in this country who IS helping to put these torturers in jail?

Your repeated false statements regarding Greenwald's work as an attorney, can only mean you do not believe in our system of justice.

Are all Defense Attorneys guilty of complicity with their clients? Is THAT what you are saying?

Should we do away with our adversarial system of law, in your opinion? Should even the worst of the worst NOT be defended?

Who would defend the Torturers? Or are you saying the should NOT be defended just summarily convicted and jailed?

You have been educated repeatedly about the role of Defenses Attorneys on this forum so we can only assume you believe there should be NO defense attorneys.

I disagree, I believe that Cheney the torturer SHOULD have a defense, and I would never accusse his Defense attorneys of doing wrong.

If you really are an attorney, it is very sad that you would object to criminals having the right to a Defense.

[msanthrope]

25. So Greenwald was lying when he wrote about his pro bono work for The National Alliance?

I mean....he worked for them for 5 years, defending them in their civil suits from their victims of color.

Sure, I'd defend one ably in a criminal court.....but Jeebus.....who would choose to be these cretins CIVIL attorney? For FREE?

Cheney should be in jail. Glenn might be the guy to do it.

[sabrina 1]

47. You must hate the Civil Liberties Union then? Greenwald was a CL attorney

and what you are saying is that there ARE segments of the population who should NEVER be defended?

Is that in the Constitution somewhere?

Are you aware that many lawyers have defended the National Alliance?

Do you condemn ALL of them or just one of them?

Or do you believe we need to adjust our system of justice to exclude certain people from the right to a defense?

I ADMIRE people like Greenwald who defend the worst of the worst in order to ensure that our system of justice WORKS.

I am appalled that someone who claims to be an attorney themselves would even attempt to condemn another attorney for doing his job.

Wow! Amazing to see this on DU of all places.

[msanthrope]

50. Kindly tell us the civil liberty that was protected in the Nazi trademark case? nt

[sabrina 1]

52. Kindly tell US when an 'accused' is not entitled to a defense?

[msanthrope]

60. You do know there's a difference between an 'accused' in a criminal trial and a 'defendant' in a

case, right?

Which are you speaking of?

[sabrina 1]

62. Kindly explain to us when an accused in ANY case, Civil or Criminal, is not entitled to

a Defense, thank you.

[msanthrope]

64. Well, I can't make you read the Constitution, sabrina. But you tell me where it says in there that

a lawyer can be compelled to take a civil defendant.

[sabrina 1]

76. And I can't make you explain why any accused has no right to a defense even though

that is what you are claiming. Or why any lawyer isn't required to consider the consequences of refusing to defend unpopular clients, either criminally or civilly.

But you don't seem to be able to point out why eg, The Civil Liberties Union are doing wrong by taking on cases other less courageous attorneys, refuse to take on?

Personally I think it takes a special kind of courage to take those cases on. Greenwald has that kind of courage.

Just because some lawyers are too cowardly to take on certain clients, worried more about their personal careers than the Constitutional Rights of everyone in this country, doesn't in any diminish the courage of those who do, like the Civil Liberties Union eg, and lawyers like Glenn Greenwald.

John Adams comes to mind. Would you have condemned him also for his defense of the most unpopular clients he could have wished for, in order to demonstrate that this is a country of LAWS rather than a tin horn dictatorship?

[msanthrope]

79. John Adams was a criminal defense attorney, as am I. GG chose to defend the money interests of

Nazis---he never appeared as Matt Hale's criminal attorney. He didn't have the 'courage,' especially when he realized he would be facing Patrick Fitzgerald, who nailed Hale's ass to the wall.

Thank you for comparing me to John Adams!

[sabrina 1]

81. Wait, so now you're saying that SOME clients are not entitled to a CIVIL DEFENSE?

Could you point out in some authoritative legal document where it says that SOME AMERICANS are not entitled to a CIVIL DEFENSE?

Thank you in advance. YOU are the attorney here, so this should not be too difficult a request for you.

[msanthrope]

83. As I noted below, you seem to be conflating civil and criminal procedure. That is unfortunate,

because it makes your questions seem facile.

If Mr. Greenwald wishes to defend the money interests of Nazis, he may do so. If you wish to defend his choice to protect the money interests of Nazis, you may do so.

But I get to say something.

Again--can you list the civil liberty of the Nazis that Mr. Greenwald was defending????

[sabrina 1]

87. I don't blame you for trying to avoid answering a direct and simple question

regarding our judicial system. I would be embarrassed to have put myself in the situation you find yourself in right now, especially if I were claiming to be an attorney.

I specifically asked you to explain why any client is NOT ENTITLED TO A CIVIL DEFENSE in this country.

No matter how much you attempt to twist and turn to try to avoid answering that question, it is clear what the answer is.

Glenn Greenwald Defended The Constitutional Right of a Defense, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, of every American by courageously taking on cases that were the most unpopular.

He is to be applauded for that. That man has guts.

And your posts PROVE how much courage it takes to do what he did. Because lawyers like him who respect our Constitution KNOW they will be attacked like this, making it all the more courageous.

So thanks for proving why it takes courage to do what he did.

[Luminous Animal]

115. You know, you've been making that accusation for quite a while. It is time to back it up...

Unfortunately, I cannot "see" the original copyright infringement lawsuit that was decided in January of 2002. What I can see is the are the appeals. The all cite attorney Todd Reardon as the attorney for Hale's church in regards to that matter.

Here is the link to the first and second appeals and also the link for the case which Hale sought to have Lefkow removed when she enforced the appeals court's decision AGAINST Hale:

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/392/392.F3d.248.03-4085.html
http://openjurist.org/297/f3d/662/te-ta-ma-truth-foundation-family-of-uri-inc-v-world-church-of-the-creator
http://www.leagle.com/decision/20031226246FSupp2d980_11126

All list Todd Reardon as Hale's attorney.

It cites the case that Judge Lefkow decided FOR Hale (below is the citation)
TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation — Family of URI, Inc. v. World Church of the Creator, 2002 WL 126103, 2002 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 1478 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 31, 2002)

The case and the decision will not come up in any search.

[sabrina 1]

142. And no response to your well researched facts. Smear campaigns are no supposed to

encounter intelligent, fact based rebuttals, such as yours Luminous. They are easier on Right Wing forums where one liners are about all that can be expected.

I remember you correcting the record on these Greenwald smears before so there is no excuse for this particular smear to be seen here ever again. Yet, it is constantly revived, in the hope I suppose, that this time they will be able to get it past DUers no doubt underestimating the intelligence of most DUers.

Some people never learn! Thank you for your links. I've been asking for links myself, but so far, nothing that shows that representing clients who are unpopular in a Civil Suit is a crime for a defense attorney.

[Luminous Animal]

146. She also had trouble addressing the facts presented in this Greenwald bashing thread a few days ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025968140

[msanthrope]

150. Hey...some of us have jobs and kids....if I take a break for a couple of hours

it's not because I can't answer you...I have a life.

[msanthrope]

148. Todd Reardon is the appellate attorney. Greenwald was the original litigator, and in fact

if you look at your own links, you'll see that GG's inability to control his client helped give rise to the award for attorney's fees.

Hale indicates in his appellate filing of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, that Reardon and Greenwald should have been called in his original solicitation criminal trial to testify as to the nature of his trademark litigation......specifially, Hale alleges that superlawyer Greenwald would have backed up Matt Hale's assertion that when he told Tony Evola to get info on a "Jew rat," he meant another attorney on the opposing trademark side, and not the Judge.

That's awesome, isn't it? You are looking at the wrong appeal Luminous....go read the appellate record for the criminal charges, because that's where Hale details that although Greenwald originally won the "World Church of the Creator," trademark case for him, Lefkow was overturned on appeal, and then the solicitation happened. Here's Greenwald after Hale was arrested for solicitation, and before Durkin took oveir.

http://blue.utb.edu/labad/white_supremacist_is_held_in_ord.htm


If you don't have access to Lexis, then go to Hale's website...Creativity Movement. All the cases are on there.

[Luminous Animal]

152. You still haven't presented any evidence that Greenwald was the attorney on the copyright infringement lawsuit.

Which you keep claiming over and over again. So counselor, who does have access to Lexis, I am asking you to access the original copyright lawsuit via Lexis, take a picture of the decision, post it here and PROVE that Greenwald was a lawyer on the copyright suit.

Your link is from 2003. The original copyright suit was first litigated in 2002. The case number that I provided to you is nowhere on the Creativity Movement site.

More misdirection.

[msanthrope]

159. Look LA....I get that you are still upset with me over the last time you demanded

links and citations.......

Do you remember what happened? You accused me of plagarism, and then, when I demonstrated that in fact, you were accusing me of plagarizing my own DU thread, you left in a huff, and didn't have the grace to apologize. That thread was hilarious to me, but given your reaction on this, and other websites (and the PMs##) you were obviously embarassed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023040270

So why try to re-engage me in the very same manner? And, in fact, what makes you think that after accusing me of plagarizing--and refusing to apologize---I'm going to provide you with anything? I'm not your monkey.

http://m.

##Fair warning....any PM will be posted this time.

FYI..One can't take "pictures" of proprietary legal websites and post them offsite, as anyone who actually uses those sites knows. I get that you are invested in defending Mr. Greenwald....but you seem to be undercutting your moral argument. Why are you trying to prove he didn't represent Hale, when it supposedly he defended all Americans by defending Hale? (I'm paraphrasing sabrina there...she made that claim upthread.)

Now....I am going to see The Hobbit. Toodles!

[Luminous Animal]

161. You never upset me. You amuse me. I hope all your opponents are stupid.

You can take a picture of the header which would show the case number, the court, the judge and the attorneys involved.

I am not trying to prove Greenwald did not represent Hale. In fact, I provided proof that he represented Hale on Constitutional grounds (see post #117). Cases that you have claimed do not exist and PRECEDE the copyright infringement cases.

Claim #1) Greenwald's first cases with Hale were in regards to copyright infringement. You've provided nothing to support this assertion. And you refuse to provide any proof. Also, I proved that the copyright case was litigated in 2002 and 'the google' reveals that Greenwald was involved in Constitutional cases with Hale in 2000. (See next claim.)

Claim #2) Greenwald did not litigate Constitutional cases for Hale. I proved you wrong in post #117.

[msanthrope]

162. Okay....I thank you for proving to us all that GG helped Matt Hale's white supremacist

church retain its tax exempt status. Good work, Glenn!

I also think you should read your own links. You have the case cite to the trademark litigation that commenced in 2000. (Not 2002....that's when Lefkow's first decision came down, you seem to be highly confused there.)

Until you apologize to me for accusing me of plagarizing, I'm not doing a damn thing for you. Actually...you seem to be ruining GGs reputation quite well.....I had no idea he helped fleece the taxpayers with Hale's scam church!!!

[Luminous Animal]

177. Okay. I apologize. Cough it up.

And hey, the misogynist church I grew up in maintains it's tax exempt status and is obscenely wealthy. It's also a Church that opposes gay rights. Actively with a easy access to the media that regularly and happily provides it a national voice… and a pile of money to promote their bigoted agenda.

If you are going to challenge Hale's church to it's tax exempt status based on bigotry, then you also have to challenge the Catholic church. Or will you make the argument that some bigots are better than others?

[sabrina 1]

165. Why don't you just provide your evidence instead of trying to avoid

the very legitimate questions people are asking you, ONLY because of your claim to be an expert on the law. So far I see no evidence of that. Greenwald himself has responded to all smears against him, and very effectively.

Why don't you address him directly, show him your credentials and debate HIM instead of running all over the internet slamming another lawyer with no foundation or willingness to identify yourself?

Otherwise stop trying to use your 'anonymous legal status' that no one here can check, while attacking a lawyer who has been admirably open about who he is and what he has done.

It is the most unprofessional behavior I have ever seen from someone claiming to be a lawyer.

[Major Nikon]

171. Results...

Look LA....I get that you are still upset with me over the last time you demanded
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5983701

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Rude, belittling personal attacks as well as threats. Dragging arguments from other threads. This petty smarm makes DU suck. Let's choose civility.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Dec 19, 2014, 09:34 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter either has a very active imagination or needs a nap.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: if you cant stand the heat stay out of the fire

Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agreed… These posts are infantile in the way they are rude.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: she walks that line, sorry

[msanthrope]

189. Thank you...I appreciate it. nt

[sabrina 1]

164. And none of that is relevant to your attempt to smear an attorney for

BEING an attorney. We've all read the case, you try this every time Greenwald is mentioned here, and every time, you are challenged and proven to be making stuff up.

Either ALL defense attorneys are slime, because ALL of them defend unsavory characters, or they are not.

I asked you before, and you've had plenty of time to go through those links but no time to respond to my question.

You claim to be a criminal defense attorney. Are you telling us that you have never defended an unsavory character and take ONLY cases where the defendant is clearly innocent beyond any doubt? If that IS the case, it would explain why you have so much time to attack another attorney on the internet.

So, what kind of clients have YOU represented? This question is valid since you are USING your expertise as an 'officer of the court' to go after Greenwald.

Greenwald has been up front about HIS career as an attorney. Are you willing to put your case history on the record as he has? If not, then you need to refrain from trying to use your 'legal expertise' to attack another attorney. Because we have no way of judging your expertise, unlike Greenwald, and I will simply assume you are not an attorney.

[choie]

89. They will say anything

To attack Greenwald because he attacks Obama. Never fails.

[sabrina 1]

96. I know. But to even try to smear an attorney for doing his job

in defending his client is truly reprehensible.

[choie]

111. Agreed

N/t

[Joe Worker]

130. Indeed Your Question Was Never Answered

Nicely Done!

[sabrina 1]

132. Thank you, it isn't the first time this particular smear has been introduced by

this poster. Nor is it the first time we have tried to get clarification as to what the problem is supposed to be with a Defense Attorney properly representing his client. Nor is it the first time I've been given the run around by this same person.

The question wasn't answered because the answer doesn't align itself with the attempt to smear Greenwald as an attorney.

We have had to challenge this smear over and over again here. It does get tiring, but it is not even thinkable to allow it to go unchallenged.

Thank you for your comment ... I think the agenda has been thoroughly exposed. However, I expect we will have to do it again and we will.

[grasswire]

57. now, now....

...a world class attorney mightn't have enough time for this; one can only afford so many non-billable hours spent in de facto pro bono work on the Internet.

[Autumn]

116. I'm a world class actress starring in an exciting sequel to a popular

movie based on a series of books by a famous author. See how that works?
Or I know how to use Google. Or maybe I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. It's the internet you know. I don't works so I have plenty of time during the day to post on DU.

[Bobbie Jo]

124. Meh

If you want to call msanthrope a liar, why not just do it instead of this tacky, passive-aggressive nonsense.

See how that works?

[Autumn]

131. passive-aggressive nonsense.

[Bobbie Jo]

137. Yes, and? nt

[Autumn]

140. And. n/t

[Electric Monk]

145. Some Greenwald haters are clearly not familiar with the Streisand Effect

but I'd like to thank them all for helping keep this thread kicked all afternoon

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

[Marr]

169. This person you're defending is

painting lawyers who defend unpopular clients as being *like* their clients morally, and vigorously suggesting that a Jewish man is a Nazi sympathizer-- all because they perceive that man as their political adversary.

And the thing that jumps out at you as being "tacky" here is a bit of snark? Seriously?

[Bobbie Jo]

174. What a load.

people can read the thread and draw their own conclusions without your "assistance."

As for the mean-spirited "snark" as you call it, I thought the post was backhanded and tacky, so I said so. The PA sniping on this board is truly tiresome, and I'll respond to whatever jumps out at me when I damn well please.

Mmkay?

[Marr]

176. Deny the obvious all you like.

I've ceased to expect any showing of character-- much less intellectual honesty-- from your little corner.

[Bobbie Jo]

179. Don't care.

Your expectations are irrelevant.

[sabrina 1]

180. That is the most despicable thing about these false allegations, Marr. Greenwald has addressed

this particular false smear very effectively as soon as it surfaced a couple of years ago, AFTER he went after the Big Banks. And we know the Big Banks were taking bids on contracts to try to smear him, thanks to Anonymous.

It's another outrage to discover that so-called 'Security Contractors', like HB Gary, consider smearing bloggers to be some kind of 'security' this country needs, iow, an attempt to silence Journalists and Left Wing Organizations who have a tendency to speak the truth.

Someone/entity/entities, have an awful lot to hide apparently.

[LanternWaste]

90. I'd apply your premise to any lawyer who believes they are good

I'd apply your premise to any lawyer who believes they are good (though I imagine a lot of excuses will be made rationalizing otherwise...).

[msanthrope]

93. Indeed. Any lawyer could do this. I will not. nt

[sabrina 1]

98. So you don't support our system of justice? You would not do what Greenwald

so courageously did, defend an unpopular client who has a RIGHT under our Constitution, to a defense?

Of course Greenwald has never tried to hide his record. We have no idea who you have represented so we do not know whether or not you have represented people some might think didn't deserve representation either.

[billhicks76]

112. Obama Covered Up For Cheney

He stonewalled this report too. He is not the reason it got released. Congress is and he knew Udall would find a way. The fact is Clinton covered up Bush Sr crimes which paved way for GW to return that family to the throne. Obama served them too by "looking forward" again but like last time it just brought the past back as it will allow Jeb Bush to be installed. If something goes wrong then the B-Team choice vetted by Wall St, Hillary Clinton, can continue the same legacy.

[sabrina 1]

167. Yes, it appears the way the system works is that Republicans commit the crimes

then Democrats cover up their crimes. What a great system, if you are a war criminal and/or a Wall St criminal.

The pattern is amazingly clear, isn't it?

[billhicks76]

172. Those Democrats Get Rewarded

Big speaking fees, revolving door big paying jobs or seats on a board or another position of high office. It's called corruption.

[JEB]

3. It would be a better world

if Cheney were in prison, dead. Better yet, never been born.

[truebluegreen]

4. "crickets" from the Glenn Greenwald haters and Obama supporters.

What a surprise.

[randome]

6. No 'hater' here, but what are you looking for? Posts with 'Ditto' as the only cogent reply?

Other than blaming Obama for everything under the sun, I agree with Greenwald that Cheney should be in prison.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

11. Absolutely....he should be, if we lived in a just and right world. GG's had experience

with torture victims....as I outlined above.

[sabrina 1]

15. So long as there are people who will try to defend the reasons why he is not in prison

that will never happen.

We thought when we threw out Republicans in 2008 that there WOULD be some accountability for these criminals who lied a country into a disastrous war, the effects of which are still ongoing and will be for generations.

Instead it was Obama who immediately told us that we were not going to do that, we were going to move forward. That was a shock. At least to anyone who believes in the rule of law, who believes that torturers should be in jail and who cares anything about this country.

But to try to ignore the reasons why this country refuses to prosecute its war criminals when it suits us?? THAT is why Cheney is not in jail.

Greenwald is correct. The question is, why is this administration protecting this horrible, arrogant, lying, SOBs when all they get in return is disdain and disrespect? WHY?

[randome]

26. No need to 'defend' anyone. Political reality takes that decision out of our hands.

I wish it was different but I wish a lot of things in this world were different.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

31. Well put. nt

[sabrina 1]

51. What 'political reality' are you talking about? We DO have laws don't we?

Are you claiming that everyone is NOT equal under the law? Could you back that up with something official please, because I have never seen that anywhere. Quite the contrary actually.

So what is this 'political reality' you are talking about?

[rhett o rick]

68. I call it the audacity of certainty. He is certain that he knows what the political reality is

and that it doesn't favor Greenwald. I would hope that politically liberal posters here would try to keep an open mind instead of claiming that they have been gifted to know for certain what political reality is. Personally, those that hate Greenwald are the same people that hate all whistle-blowers, protesters, OWS, journalists, etc. that don't show proper homage to their authoritarian leader. Generally these are not open minded liberals. It's like the story of the naked emperor. Those that dare speak out to say that the emperor has no clothes are disparaged by those whose reality is whatever the emperor tells them. And in my reality, Gen Clapper has no clothes.

[sabrina 1]

99. I agree, it's interesting though, because they oppose all the people and

organizations, protesters etc that the right opposes.

I'm still waiting for an answer regarding this 'political reality'. So far, no answer.

[randome]

113. I am 'claiming' that Obama is not a monster. He is not out to destroy our way of life.

He is the one on the front lines. If he sees pursuing Bush, Jr. and his cohorts as a futile course, I'm willing to give someone like him the benefit of the doubt.

Notice that's not the same as a blank check.

I, myself, am not on the front lines so it's presumptuous of me to claim to know anything. All I have is observation and opinion.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

123. We have laws in this country. If someone isn't up to allowing justice to take its

course, they should step out of the way and let those who do have the courage to do so, to go ahead and do it.

Wikileaks cables proved that the Spanish Court which was handling the prosecutions of six of Bush's torturers, was contacted by this administration and pressured into stopping the case. Why? Obama could simply have stayed out of it.

That case is not closed, just delayed due to the intervention of this administration.

That was an active step to prevent the victims from seeing their day in court.

Spain is not the US. So why did this happen?

[Thespian2]

43. Great post, sabrina 1

When the American criminal elements (CEO's, Banksters, The Bush family in toto, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and assorted others) decided it would be horrible to prosecute the bloody, evil, BASTARDS who killed so many and destroyed so many lives, no one was going to challenge the orders from above.The GREED machine requires continual war. Obama was told that he must keep his hands off Cheney and Company or he would go down in flames himself.

America will have to wait for prosecutors in other countries to bring charges against these inhuman monsters.

[sabrina 1]

106. Thank you, I think that is what will happen eventually, as America declines

as far as Human Rights violations go, and its abuses against so many people from all over the world, other Nations will step in to try to get justice for their own citizens.

In fact that has already begun. But the US has interfered, as the Wikileaks cables have shown. This administration, it was revealed, intervened in the Spanish Court's prosecutions of Bush's Torturers, having the standing to do so.

But the case is not closed and and can be revived and most likely will be.

We have shown that this country, much like its Police, are not capable of policing their own War Criminals. So yes, it will have to come from outside.

[msanthrope]

19. Absolutely not--Cheney should be in jail. It's just that some of recall the time GG

had no problem with civilly representing people who advocated violence against people of color.

[Marr]

32. I just want to note how gross it is for a lawyer to use that particular attack

on someone arguing an unpopular legal point.

[msanthrope]

35. Really? We aren't talking about criminal defense, where a lawyer is called on by the Constitution

to defend liberty.

No...we are talking about Mr. Greenwald's choice to *voluntarily* defend the money interests of a Neo Nazi hate group. Just like when he was defending Matt Hale--he claimed it was for civil rights, but the first case he took involved settling an IP dispute between two warring Nazi factions.

Mr. Greenwald has the perfect right, just as when he worked as a Wall Street lawyer, to choose his clients.

But he doesn't have the right to escape criticism for defending the moneyed interests of despicable people.

[sabrina 1]

54. No, YOU are condemning all Civil Liberties attorneys who have defended

those unpopular groups or individuals who have been 'accused'.

Sorry, I like our system of justice and admire attorneys, the Civil Liberties Union eg, AND Greenwald, for exposing themselves to just this kind of ATTACK because of their belief that even the worst of the worst, are entitled to a defense, under OUR system of justice.

What crime do Civil Liberties Attorneys commit when the defend Mass Killers, the KKK, Torturers etc?

This NEW theory of justice developed since Greenwald continued to write about corruption in our government, on Wall St etc, is intriguing to me.

[msanthrope]

58. GG didn't defend any liberties. Otherwise, you would be able to state what he defended. nt

[sabrina 1]

63. Greenwald defended a client. Please tell us why defending a client

in either a Civil Case or a Criminal case is now unacceptable in the US?

[msanthrope]

65. He chose to defend the money interest of Nazis. He gets to live with the criticism.

Care to tell us which specific civil liberty he was defending?

[msanthrope]

67. Again, you seem to have a problem naming the civil liberty GG defended in behalf of the Nazis in

the trademark case.

Could you enlighten us on that?

[sabrina 1]

71. You've played this game before and it didn't work. I'm asking YOU under what

circumstance should someone be denied a defense, in a Civil or Criminal case. You seem to be having trouble answering that simple question considering you ARE claiming that there should NOT have been any defense in that 'landmark case'. That IS what you are saying, no?

It's really a simple question.

[msanthrope]

74. I've answered all your questions--you won't answer one of mine? What civil liberty was GG defending

in the Nazi IP case?

[sabrina 1]

77. The right to a defense!! You seriously don't get that??

And no, you have not answered the question.

What did Greenwald do wrong, what does the Civil Liberties Union do wrong, by defending unpopular clients, either civilly or criminally??

Just tell us what they are doing wrong.

[msanthrope]

82. Are you saying GG was a court appointed lawyer? You seem to be conflating criminal and civil

procedure. Further, you seem to be advocating that one's choices should be immune to criticism.

That Mr. Greenwald chose to defend the money interests of Nazis is his choice. But I get to say something about it.

Now---can you name the civil liberty he was defending?

[sabrina 1]

84. So he did nothing wrong, in fact he had the courage to uphold the Constitutional Rights

of every American, regardless how unpopular, to a Defense under our system of justice and YOU are attempting to twist that into a smear campaign against him?

Talk about a total FAILURE of an argument. I said it before and I will say it again, I know many lawyers and not one of them would even TRY to use this against an lawyer.

Not one, no matter how much they disagreed with them on political issues.

Because all of the lawyers I know and have known respect our Constitution and would APPLAUD people like Greenwald for taking on cases that they themselves might not be willing to do.

You claim to be a lawyer, I find that hard to believe considering your lack of understanding of our Judicial System.

[msanthrope]

86. Oh--I think it's very wrong to defend the money interests of Nazis. For example, I think

lawyers who tried to prevent Jewish families from reclaiming assets stolen by the Nazis were despicable. I think taking sides in a Nazi war over a trademark is despicable. I think defending Matt Hale and trying to get him a law license is despicable, and I think defending Nazi's against people of color in a civil matter is despicable.

I think being a Wachtel litigator is despicable.

Your mileage may vary.

[sabrina 1]

135. Iow, you do not believe in the work of the ACLU or any other Civil Liberties

attorneys.

As you say, this was a Civil matter, so Greenwald wasn't going to be helping release a serial killer on society.

What do you think of attorneys who get murderers out of jail?

And if you are an attorney, what kind of people have you represented? Greenwald puts his name on his work. So we get to see what he has done.

Are YOU willing to do the same? I think any lawyer who is criticizing HIS work, needs to put their own work on the table. This way we can judge if they abide by their own 'standards'.

[Marr]

88. I won't climb in the mud with you on this, sorry-- but since I'm back for a post, I might

as well point out that your not-so-vague suggestion that the Jewish Glenn Greenwald is a neo-Nazi or Neo-Nazi sympathizer is just the rotten cherry on top of an already foul Sundae.

[deurbano]

151. Obviously self-hating and a Nazi lover. Probably abuses all those rescue dogs, too.

[grasswire]

153. that took my breath away

And he's gay, as well! What a turn of events here.

[sabrina 1]

103. It is despicable, isn't it? I know that Greenwald's Right Wing enemies, and he has

plenty of them, always had, used that against him also.

How they had the wherewithal to dig up his cases is beyond me, so I always assumed some Think Tank researched his life to try to dig up something, ANYTHING, to smear him with. And that is about all they could come up with, not realizing that it in fact, ENHANCES his reputation, as a courageous lawyer willing to defend people he himself no doubt despises.

To see the same smears being peddled here is simply appalling.

[Marr]

110. It is.

It's just gross to watch, honestly.

[sabrina 1]

139. Yes, and no matter how often this vile smear has been debunked on this site

it is reintroduced again and again. The dishonesty involved in continuing to post a smear like this AFTER it has been debunked multiple times, truly does raise questions. And has.

[great white snark]

23. Cheney should be in jail and I support Obama. Sorry to disappoint your "crickets"

Maybe your next attempt at a...gotcha?...will be more fruitful.

[sabrina 1]

24. What I am reading here is that any Defense Attorney who does his/her job

in defending a client, let's say a murderer, is defending 'murder'. That is what this poster is claiming in an attempt to try to smear Greenwald who did his job defending a client.

If we follow that logic, we would have to eliminate defense attorneys from our system of justice and go right to convictions.

At least you would think they would come up with something more logical in the 'hate Greenwald' smear campaign.

[randome]

27. How about "Anyone who defends murderers should not talk publicly about murderers." ?

That sounds more appropriate.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

45. Wait! Did you really say that with a straight face? Let's see, you are a defense attorney

who does your job as a very important part of our judicial system.

Because of your profession as a defense attorney, you may no longer state that you believe murder is a reprehensible crime.

So, iow, once you become a Defense Attorney, you give up your right to speak freely about crime in generaly, because someone is going to say 'that guy defends MURDER? Are you serious?

Wow!

[rhett o rick]

70. Conservatives hate defense attorneys because defense attorneys

some times defend guilty people.

[msanthrope]

75. Conservatives hate us until they need to stay out of jail. Then they love us. nt

[sabrina 1]

126. So, have you kept any undesirables out of jail? You are attacking a defense attorney

for defending undesirables (yes, we know, in a civil case) but we don't know what undesirables you may have kept out of jail, worse, in a criminal case where they might have been removed from society and prevented from harming anyone else.

Greenwald, as you have pointed out several times, was NOT keeping anyone who may have been a threat, out of jail. HIS case was a CIVIL case.

Any lawyer pointing fingers at Greenwald, who has never even tried to hide his work, needs to put their own work on the table so we can judge THEM the same way THEY are judging him.

Don't worry, I would not attack you for being a Defense attorney defending even one of the worst, because in the big picture, without Defense attorneys, we would be nothing but a tin horn dictatorship summarily convicting the accused.

[msanthrope]

149. Um...Greenwald has never been a criminal defense attorney. He's a litigator. nt

[sabrina 1]

166. I asked about YOUR clients. You are attacking a lawyer for defending

an undesirable client. What kind of clients do YOU represent? You claim to be a criminal defense attorney, so why do YOUR clients need defending? Should YOU have turned down any of YOUR clients as you are claiming Greenwald should have?

Your opinions on this are totally worthless as an attorney which you claim to be and are using to gain credibility for your opinions, unless you reveal your own list of clients so that we can judge whether or not you are being hypocritical.

[msanthrope]

168. I represent the liberty interests of the dregs of humanity. I 've never stooped to working on Wall

Street, like GG, though. And I've never helped a white supremacist group fleece the taxpayers (hat tip to Luminous Animal for revealing that case!) I've never helped a Nazi with an "intellectual property" claim.

I am truly, truly enjoying your Streisand effect, sabrina. Now my movie is starting....back tomorrow.

[sabrina 1]

170. You mean you try to defend the accused and keep them out of jail?

But how SHAMEFUL. Wasn't it you who declared how shameful it was for Greenwald to have defended members of the dregs of society in CIVIL suit? He wasn't even trying to keep them out of jail?

I am enjoying watching you try to wiggle out of your false accusations against another attorney now that many DUers have instructed you on the Constitutional Rights of all people in this country who stand accused.

Thank the gods for the ACLU and for courageous attorneys like Greenwald!

[randome]

121. I put that too stridently, obviously.

But I would say anyone who is not a public defender (whose job is often to defend the indefensible) -someone who willingly takes up the case of a white supremacist or a murderer- should not be the one to cast aspersions on anyone else.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

127. Are you saying that only the indigent bad guys (that would be those who have

access to a public defender) have any right to a defense, while those who can afford an attorney do not?? Really? That would probably put most Defense attorneys out of business.

That is how our system works. The accused, no matter how reprehensible, if they can afford a lawyer, have a right to that lawyer, and every Defense Attorney in the country, has a duty to represent their clients to the best of their ability.

Do you see the hole being dug here by someone who claims to be an attorney?

I wouldn't go down that hole if I were you. We have all gone round and round with this before.

The only reason I am bothering is because I will not stand by and allow someone to outright lie about any Civil Rights attorney who has the courage to take on the most difficult-to-defend cases.

Why? Because without them, we HAVE no system of justice.

I think you need to think a bit more about the notion that you have to be indigent to have a right to an attorney.

[neverforget]

138. They're wrapping themselves up in pretzels

because they hate Greenwald so much.

[sabrina 1]

143. Yes, and it's shameful imo, that any democrat would try to push this unconstitutional

garbage on this forum.

I expect it on right wing forums and have seen against Greenwald on many of them, but to see it here? If this is what the Dem Party has come to, many of us will have to rethink where we are in this system.

However, I am glad to see that most DUers are definitely not buying it, nor have they in the past, so it makes you wonder, why do they continue to do it here?

[truebluegreen]

125. So since you are an Obama supporter you support his policy toward torturers?

Or did you mean to say something else. I'm all ears.

[Joe Worker]

141. Obama Pelosi and Holder

Used a "Get Out Of Jail" Free Pass For Dick.

2+2 Does Not Equal Free.

[Doctor_J]

158. Not really. They came to this thread...to bash Greenwald instead of Cheney

A unique clan they are.

[truebluegreen]

160. Oddities, to be sure. nt

[WillyT]

9. Ditto...

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Greenwald is of course correct, and his detractors will of course criticize him and not Cheney

And that is the problem with his detractors as a people, they are without any ethics in their attacks. It took much effort to put an end to the homophobic smears against him posted by many and never objected to by the others. The thread in which they tried to foist a conspiracy theory involving LGBT DU members because some bigoted shit 'just found out Greenwald is gay and so are some on DU!!!!' lasted a week then Earl G ppr'd the OP. But not one of the constant critics had so much as a cross word for the methods used by their own. They applauded it, laughed about it and tried to deny it was homophobic.
These are people who clearly need to watch themselves when being critical of say, African American Republicans. Would it be fair to use racist or race based attacks on Ben Carson, just 'cause he sux? I think not. But the Greenwald Hate Committee is clearly very comfortable with such tactics.
And today they continue that fine work they are so committed to.
"Greenwald is a very emotional writer. I mean this in a disparaging way, since many portray him as an objective reporter.... I have found out that Greenwald is Gay, and I know from a lot of posts here at DU that many of the LGBT community here at DU are disenchanted with Obama. I find that interesting...."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297376

[msanthrope]

29. Of course GG is correct. He's also, at the same time, a hypocrite. He had no problem being the

civil attorney--pro bono--for a right wing hate group who advocated violence and torture. He had no problem defending said group when victims of color wanted damages.

Yes--Cheney should be jail. But I don't need the self-serving hypocrisy of Glenn Greenwald to know that.

[Bluenorthwest]

122. You seem to have missed my point. People who have sat by while or taken part in political criticism

of anyone that use that person's sexuality as a rhetorical weapon have no credibility with me whatsoever, anything such people claim later is taken for what it is, the sort of shit said by people who use bigoted attacks on political enemies or watch their friends do so while they all giggle and chortle.
People who would do that would do anything.
And are you telling me all of your clients are innocent? How do you work that one out?

[deurbano]

40. Yikes! (On that thread.) Hadn't seen it before.

The contempt for Greenwald seems so personal for some people.

[sabrina 1]

61. I remember that thread very well. It was a disgusting thread

As for the Greenwald hatred by some here, you may or may not know that BOA was taking bids from Private Security Contractors on smear campaigns against anyone who was writing or talking about the corruption they were trying to hide at that time. Most of the targets were 'left' groups, one of them was Glenn Greenwald, who at the time, was supporting Wikileaks exposures of corruption.

The 'plot' was revealed by Anonymous who got into an argument with HB Gary CEO, (Security Contractor) who threatened to expose Anonymous. They responded by hacking into HB Gary and putting their emails online.

Among the emails were conversations about how to 'get' people who were telling the truth about BOA among others. And one name that showed up was Glenn Greenwald.

They talked about getting info on his 'family, wife if he had one, children, what church they went, what schools his children, if he had any, went to'.

When Greenwald learned he was a target of a Security Contractor for a smear campaign he was naturally surprised. He was only a blogger at the time.

Presumably HB Gary dropped that bid after the exposure, however it is CLEAR someone else got it as the smears haven't stopped with the exposure of the one contractor's 'proposals'.

What should horrify ANYONE is that Security Contractors getting paid millions to smear journalists and whistle blowers and Liberal Organizations, is not ILLEGAL.

Instead we see people either wittingly or unwittingly actually participating in this vile practice.

[deurbano]

102. Yes, I do remember that smear campaign revelation. I was following Greenwald on Salon back then.

And it was weird that he was such a target (in the BOA affair), at a time before he had even left for the Guardian, much less become involved with Snowden. (He didn't seem in a position to warrant the effort.) When he was on a book tour for With Liberty and Justice for Some (his book about our 2-tiered justice system) that same year (2011), I took my 13-yr-old to a Salon event in San Francisco featuring him, and then we attended a modest "after-party" nearby at Tommy's Joynt. The event was very interesting, and Greenwald was an insightful and eloquent speaker. When we talked one-on-one, he was polite and friendly, kind to my child (the youngest participant)... just a regular person. (To the extent any of us are "regular.&quot So, for me to subsequently see the sort of unhinged smearing of him by some here (on a liberal site)... there has been such a disconnect between these unrecognizable depictions of him and what I saw with my own eyes, before most people knew who he was. If people disagree with his commentary, with his arguments...fine. I just don't get the vitriol and personal smearing.

[sabrina 1]

104. Very good post, thank you. I am glad your son got to meet him as I think

he will be remembered from this dark period of our history, as someone who had the courage to stand up to the 'dark side'.

The smears we are seeing here are Right Wing smears against someone who stands up against all that they hold dear, torture, Wall St corruption etc. They have no place on a Democratic forum imho.

[War Horse]

28. I think this is the first time I've said/written this,

but I agree with Greenwald 100 % here. I'm not a Greenwald "hater", but I've both found him hypocritical and questioned his motives before. But when someone is right, they are right. It really shouldn't be more complicated than that, should it?

*Edited for really stupid spelling error.

[polichick]

30. That's what would happen in a country with "liberty and justice for all."

[msanthrope]

33. That's a goal, not a reality. And I say that as an officer of the court. nt

[polichick]

34. Looks like it's not even a goal for our "leaders."

[msanthrope]

42. I think it is. But I think reality--and the limits of practicality--intrude. I think blaming

President Obama for the fact that Cheney is walking the earth is shortsighted and facile.

[polichick]

44. Actions speak louder than words.

[msanthrope]

48. True--which is why the Executive Order on Torture was deafening. Which is why the Executive Order

on Guantanamo was deafening.

Which is why, now that President Obama has gone directly behind the backs of Congress to the Pope to secure places for Guantanamo prisoners, there are howls from the right.

Which is why, when President Obama put up no real resistance to DiFI releasing the report....I got the fuck over him using the word "folks."

[polichick]

53. And yet, "looking forward" does not uphold the law with regard to Cheney & Co.

[msanthrope]

66. Political reality will always trump the law. nt

[polichick]

72. We're either a "nation of laws" or we're not - if we're not, politicians should stfu...

Last edited Fri Dec 19, 2014, 02:42 PM - Edit history (1)

When a kid gets caught with drugs, we're a nation of laws.

When a mother steals to feed her kids, we're a nation of laws.

But when a member of the club lies us into war, tortures people or destroys the economy, the law doesn't apply.

Depraved fuckers.

[LanternWaste]

94. No more and no less than bumper-stickers will always trump actual wisdom.

No more and no less than bumper-stickers (much as the one I'm responding to) will always trump actual wisdom.

[sabrina 1]

101. Only for as long as there are enablers of the criminals, and/or messenger attackers.

So long as people view themselves as 'team players' rather than Americans first, War Criminals will remain free in this country.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

155. Political reality will always trump the law. What a disgusting statement.

If you really are an attorney, and if you really are defending torture with the "political reality" trope, it may be time to examine your priorities. If and when I need counsel, I'll secure the services of someone who does believe in the law.

[jalan48]

36. One Party Rule

Another glaring example of our one party rule.

[johnnyreb]

37. "Resolution" music video (torture)

[ladjf]

38. Figure out how to get Cheney put in jail for his transgressions against America

and you may the formula on how to clean up our politics. nt

[ladjf]

38. Figure out how to get Cheney put in jail for his transgressions against America

and you may the formula on how to clean up our politics. nt

[tclambert]

41. I've been disappointed since inauguration day that Cheney wasn't handcuffed to his wheelchair and

rolled to the nearest prison. Inauguration day 2009. I wanted Obama's speech that day to include the words, "America is a nation of law. In America, no one, NO ONE, is above the law. Agents, take them away."

[Demit]

56. Jeez, I'd forgotten that. He showed up in a wheelchair so he wouldn't have to stand & show respect.

What a twisted man he is.

[msanthrope]

92. He needed the wheelchair. He still had the DC Press Corp shoved so far up his ass he couldn't walk.

[Demit]

105. cute

[rhett o rick]

73. The power lies with the Deep State and they like Cheney. Presidents do what they can

within the guidance of the Deep State.

[polynomial]

46. Here is the beef

Cheney wages war and misery. His future legacy as doing it again and telling America over, and over he would do it again revels something very special.

The fix was in, deal to assassinate Osama Bin Laden by a Black President Obama with all the intelligence supplied by Cheney is the deal projected a long time ago. The similarity in names has what is known in chaos theory as a strange attraction. It fits perfectly to confuse the low information public.

This is telling me Obama had to kill Osama Bin Laden for a very thin reason torture was worth it.

It is insane to charge into war with an all-volunteer Army that is paid for with borrowed money from China, waging war with secret Black Water mercenaries paid large wages compared the regular Army by a company that he owns, or once owned is more than enough violation of the Constitution.

Connections like that don’t just drop off by selling stock. At least Cheney and Bush should be on trial with a special grand jury to sift through all these details, especially the family fortune of both reviewed before and after in public broadcasting to determine profiteering.

So, now Cheney can weasel his rounds on cable television and convince that asshat half of the electorate that torture is good.

However at least half America knows Bush and Cheney through the years flipped too many banking and war profiteering schemes now they appear obnoxious with no alternative but to keep to the basic lie till they die…But the their kids will wonder what will happen next…They will be on trial forever.

[grasswire]

55. don't forget the Bushes and their Carlyle Group. nt

[Derek V]

49. Off to Greatest Threads with You!

[99Forever]

78. If those that have the power and MORAL OBLIGATION...

Last edited Fri Dec 19, 2014, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)

... hadn't abdicated their responsibility to do their JOB, all of the War Criminals would be behind bars where they belong. Instead, we "look forward. "

[LittleBlue]

100. If almost anyone else had said this, no argument would have erupted

It would have been a 20 or so reply thread full of recs and +1s.

Just goes to show the influence that the messenger has on the message.

[riderinthestorm]

144. + 1000 nt

[sabrina 1]

163. You're wrong, anyone who said what Greenwald said would have elicited the same

response, unless the did not refer to President Obama as part of the problem by choosing to move forward rather than investigate war crimes.

Any messenger who does that will be attacked, no matter how true it may be.

[spanone]

107. 100% true. and he had no remorse whatsoever...doubled down...would do it again.

fuck this cheney cretin.

[cstanleytech]

108. My prediction is Cheney will serve time in prison around the time that Putin or

Kim Jong-un does.

[BeanMusical]

109. Kick!

[blkmusclmachine]

114. DC is deeply corrupted. They're not going to prosecute their own. Ain't gonna happen!

All those empty prisons from coast to coast are for the 99%.

[malaise]

119. The war criminal of a Dick and the entire Bush Senior Administration

should have been locked up.

[PatrickforO]

133. The original sin of the Obama Administration...

I remember the discussions on boards like this back in 08 and 09. Then, the talking point was that if the Dems did that, then when Repubs were in power they would not hesitate. Also, it was pointed out that such a move would polarize politics in DC and would guarantee the Repubs would never cooperate with the administration at all.

These arguments were full of holes then, and are full of holes now. First of all, the Republicans didn't hesitate to impeach Clinton, and they have not hesitated to block most of Obama's nominations for cabinet posts, and have not cooperated with anything the Dems have tried to do. Republicans who decided not to cooperate with anything Obama wanted on his very inauguration night are to my mind guilty of sedition and should have been summarily removed from office with replacements appointed by their states' governors.

Now, well...just too much malfeasance to speak of here.

But, yes, TRY these war criminals, and while we're at it, why not try the Wall St. hucksters who got us into the recession as well. I hate that these people are still running around free when they caused so much suffering, and for the war criminals, so much death of innocent people.

[stupidicus]

136. yep, but you can likely find a GG hater who'll attack him and his prior cases

while rationalizing away/justifying the lack of a criminal case being presented against Evil Dick and crew...

That GG haters would also be supportive of letting Cheney off the hook that way -- if ONLY by way of failing to criticize/condemn those behind the inaction -- only goes to show you how the depth and breadth of the irrational hatred he has managed to produce in the more weak-minded who won't tolerate any dissing of their dear leader.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

154. "'What I did was absolutely right,'"

He would say that as he stood before a firing squad.

[d_b]

156. an unmarked grave is more like it

[Doctor_J]

157. But greenwald is gay and has boxes in his garage

so I'm not sure we should believe him.

[sabrina 1]

173. I hope Cheney reads DU. He will see this OP on the FP.

He'll probably appreciate the Greenwald haters. I'm sure his hatred for Greenwald knows no bounds.

But he won't be happy with the majority of those who commented in this thread.

[jtuck004]

175. One day a mad urologist is going to see that cancer and remove him, just out of reflex. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

178. It makes obama complicit, does it not?

[True Blue Door]

181. I would agree with Greenwald if he would stop treating every fucking subject

as an excuse to attack the personal character of Barack Obama. I don't know what it is with that guy, but he has Glenn Beckish-ly insane obsession with demonizing this President.

Cheney should be in jail. And Greenwald should care more about promoting that fact than attacking Barack Obama.

[Luminous Animal]

182. Whose is responsible for prosecuting Cheney?

[True Blue Door]

183. Eric Holder.

[Luminous Animal]

184. Who is Eric Holder's boss. The DOJ is and executive branch department.

[True Blue Door]

186. As far as prosecutions are concerned, he doesn't have a boss.

The President can fire him, but does so at the peril of impeachment if it's seen as political interference in prosecutorial matters.

And anyone he would replace anyway has to be approved by the Senate.

This is basic civics. If you can't get it through your head that the President doesn't prosecute people, then you're not going to be of any use to the effort to achieve justice.

[Luminous Animal]

187. I have never once claimed that the President prosecutes people. Either discuss what I am actually

writing or go be snotty to someone else. In Article II of the Constitution there a a few specific duties assigned to the Presidency; one of which is: "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"

[woo me with science]

185. Huge K&R to this thread, to Greenwald,

Last edited Sat Dec 20, 2014, 08:20 PM - Edit history (3)

and to sabrina1, Luminous Animal, polichick, and every other DUer who took the time and effort in this thread to expose, yet again, the utter shamelessness, moral bankruptcy, and serial dishonesty of the propaganda/smear machine.

We are fighting for the very soul of our nation.

[Luminous Animal]

188. Hey, Woo. And thank you for for doing all that you do. You've racked up an impressive amount

of informative posts and I always appreciate seeing you lay them out.