General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How can ANY Democrat defend the detention of Greenwald's partner? [View all]Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)one of the most frequently used phrases has been that "Democrats don't lockstep" the way Republicans do.
It was part of DU's appeal, the idea that despite disagreement on some very serious issues - often vehement disagreement - individuals were free to express their views without having their "Dem-cred" questioned.
What I have seen of late - especially when it comes to the topic of Snowden/Greenwald - is posts like yours, asking how ANY Democrat can think, defend, promote, etc. any statement, action, or behavior that is contrary to what a certain contingent here has deemed to be acceptable. In other words, it is a very thinly-disguised admonition to lockstep.
On the particular subject of Miranda's detention, it should be obvious that this is not a black-and-white issue. Greenwald has made statements that are threatening (e.g. the US should be on its knees hoping he doesn't disclose all he knows), has demonstrated a total lack of responsibility and/or understanding of the consequences of his actions, and has made no secret of his anti-Obama administration agenda and his Libertarian leanings, and has shown himself to be an attention-whore of the highest order when it comes to insinuating himself into the starring role of every news story he prints.
Given the circumstances, it would seem apparent that Miranda WOULD BE detained and questioned as a matter of course while acting as a paid courier to transmit documents that could well be detrimental to the national security of the UK, as well as the US. To insist (as many here are doing) that Miranda was a disinterested party with no involvement in this matter other than being Greenwald's spouse is not merely misleading - it flies in the face of the facts as they are known.
"If you support the core values of the Democratic Party, doesn't that give you a personal obligation to OPPOSE the national security state when it clearly oversteps its boundaries? When it treats people like terrorists just because they engage in free speech?"
I am a Democrat and, like many other Democrats, I do not see "the national security state" (?) over-stepping its boundaries when it detains and questions someone who's motives are questionable. I also do not see Greenwald as merely "engaging in free speech" so much as attempting to make a buck by hyping what he thinks he knows in order to sell himself as a journalist to be reckoned with - new book in the offing, all publicity more than appreciated.
Unless Greenwald is the stupidest man who ever lived, he KNEW Miranda would be detained - in fact, as things turned out, I'm sure he was counting on it.
You and others here have deified Greenwald (and Snowden - remember him?), and it is certainly your prerogative to do so.
But when you imply that ANY Democrat who refuses to lockstep behind your hero is not supportive of core Democratic values, you are the one doing the over-stepping.
I, as many here, am NOT a lockstepper. I am free to form my own opinions about Greenwald, Snowden, Manning, Assange - and anyone and anything else. I do not need your stamp of approval as to what opinions are acceptable, nor your interpretation of what constitutes core Democratic values.