Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Right on cue, Glenn Greenwald turns an ISIS atrocity into an anti-Obama screed... [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)24. Glenn Greenwald vs. Cass Sunstein -- Battle Royal, in their own words!
In this July 2008 interview with Amy Goodman, they discuss Telcom immunity, domestic spying and prosecuting Bush Jr.'s criminality:
How Should the Next President Deal with the Bush White House Crimes?
A debate between two progressive legal experts on the FISA bill and the idea of prosecuting of Bush and White House officials for criminal acts.
The whole article is worth reading. Thanks to "Fair Use" here are a few excerpts...
In this corner, Glenn Greenwald:
The idea that this wasn't a reversal is just insultingly false. Back in December, Senator Obama was asked, "What is your position on Senator Dodd's pledge to filibuster a bill that contains retroactive immunity?" And at first, Senator Obama issued an equivocal statement, and there were demands that he issue a clearer statement. His campaign spokesman said -- and I quote -- "Senator Obama will support a filibuster of any bill that contains retroactive immunity" -- "any bill that contains retroactive immunity." The bill before the Senate two weeks ago contained retroactive immunity, by everybody's account, and yet not only did Senator Obama not adhere to his pledge to support a filibuster of that bill, he voted for closure on the bill, which is the opposite of a filibuster. It's what enables a vote to occur. And then he voted for the underlying bill itself. So it's a complete betrayal of the very unequivocal commitment that he made not more than six months ago in response to people who wanted to know his position on this issue in order to decide whether or not to vote for him. That's number one.
Number two, the idea that this bill is an improvement on civil liberties is equally insulting in terms of how false it is. This is a bill demanded by George Bush and Dick Cheney and opposed by civil libertarians across the board. ACLU is suing. The EFF is vigorously opposed. Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd, the civil libertarians in the Senate, are vehemently opposed to it; they say it's an evisceration of the Fourth Amendment. The idea that George Bush and Dick Cheney would demand a bill that's an improvement on civil liberties and judicial oversight is just absurd. This bill vests vast new categories of illegal and/or unconstitutional and warrantless surveillance powers in the President to spy on Americans' communications without warrants. If you want to say that that's necessary for the terrorist threat, one should say that. But to say that it's an improvement on civil liberties is just propaganda.
In the other corner, Cass Sunstein:
Well, I speak just for myself and not for Senator Obama on this, but my view is that impeachment is a remedy of last resort, that the consequences of an impeachment process, a serious one now, would be to divide the country in a way that is probably not very helpful. It would result in the presidency of Vice President Cheney, which many people enthusiastic about impeachment probably aren't that excited about. I think it has an understandable motivation, but I don't think it's appropriate at this stage to attempt to impeach two presidents consecutively.
In terms of holding Bush administration officials accountable for illegality, any crime has to be taken quite seriously. We want to make sure there's a process for investigating and opening up past wrongdoing in a way that doesn't even have the appearance of partisan retribution. So I'm sure an Obama administration will be very careful both not to turn a blind eye to illegality in the past and to institute a process that has guarantees of independence, so that there isn't a sense of the kind of retribution we've seen at some points in the last decade or two that's not healthy.
SNIP...
Well, there has been a big debate among law professors and within the Supreme Court about the President's adherent authority to wiretap people. And while I agree with Senator Feingold that the President's position is wrong and the Supreme Court has recently, indirectly at least, given a very strong signal that the Supreme Court itself has rejected the Bush position, the idea that it's an impeachable offense to adopt an incorrect interpretation of the President's power, that, I think, is too far-reaching. There are people in the Clinton administration who share Bush's view with respect to foreign surveillance. There are past attorney generals who suggested that the Bush administration position is right. So, I do think the Bush administration is wrong -- let's be very clear on that -- but the notion that it's an impeachable offense seems to me to distort the notion of what an impeachable offense is. That's high crimes and misdemeanors. And an incorrect, even a badly incorrect, interpretation of the law is not impeachable.
So. Who demonstrates INTEGRITY in the above example?
One of my favorite OPs: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002797594
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
248 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Right on cue, Glenn Greenwald turns an ISIS atrocity into an anti-Obama screed... [View all]
Blue_Tires
Feb 2015
OP
Thank you. The OP is wrong - this is no screed against Obama. It's a clinical analysis
leveymg
Feb 2015
#6
Yes. Cult of personality. Was Bush's, now Obama's. You have to summarily dismiss them as irrational.
PSPS
Feb 2015
#59
"Very misleading OP." Big surprise there. Usually Greenwalds detractors are so fair.
Vattel
Feb 2015
#43
Want to explain to the site admins why you can view a hidden transparency page?
Ykcutnek
Feb 2015
#46
can you kindly point me to an example of the bar that "Greenwald fans" have set..
frylock
Feb 2015
#68
It also was Greenwald who called out Bush and Cheney on illegal NSA spying back in 2007.
Octafish
Feb 2015
#22
A year after others had already broken the story. Yeah, amazing journalist job that.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#51
Except for that pesky fact that he was writing about in 2005 on his blog, "Unclaimed Territory"
Luminous Animal
Feb 2015
#128
Ah so the entire world thinks another journalist broke the story but it was Greenwald all along?
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#151
Greenwald has never claimed that he broke the story. Nor has anyone else. You are woefully inept at this.
Luminous Animal
Feb 2015
#161
Really. "Journalist" Leser. Quote me where I claim he broke the story. Use your best "journalistic"
Luminous Animal
Feb 2015
#163
So extraordinarily dishonest. Nothing there about me or him claiming to break any sort of story.
Luminous Animal
Feb 2015
#172
No."Journalist" Leser. I plainly said that he was reporting on the NSA story 2 years
Luminous Animal
Feb 2015
#178
You just proved me right. The NY times broke the story in mid Dec 2015, nearly 2006
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#180
Not once said he beat them to it. Quit lying. Merely said he was reporting on it. Where are your
Luminous Animal
Feb 2015
#186
For someone who wishes to be taken seriously as a journalist, you're highly subjective...
MrMickeysMom
Feb 2015
#230
So let me get this straight, you demand he get credit for breaking an already broken story?
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#150
Send me the links where you were reporting on NSA abuses in 2005 "journalist" Leser.
Luminous Animal
Feb 2015
#167
Quote me. You can't. Quote me in your subject line. "Journist" Leser. There will be crickets.
Luminous Animal
Feb 2015
#173
Nope. Not any where ever have I made the claim he broke the story. Pure fabrication "journalist"
Luminous Animal
Feb 2015
#179
Quote what I wrote in your subject line. "Journalist" Leser. Quote where I said he broke the story?
Luminous Animal
Feb 2015
#183
Your credibility is a shit clogged toilet. Quote me in subject line where I said he broke the story.
Luminous Animal
Feb 2015
#187
1/30/06- Digby:"Glenn Greenwald has been the go-to guy in this [illegal NSA wiretaps/hearing Qs]"
deurbano
Feb 2015
#188
"I find it odd to see DUers hating on the guy now." Give them credit for being flexible.
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#54
I don't think you or anyone else holds the morality card on when it's appropriate to speak out
bigtree
Feb 2015
#189
It has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with nationalistic thinking. As Orwell pointed out.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#220
Some of his acolytes here can do the same thing. A thread about a president picking up a hitchhiker
Number23
Feb 2015
#19
Oh, giftedgirl hit the jackpot when she came up with. What made it so perfect was that it is so
Number23
Feb 2015
#122
If it's a screed against anything, it's against U.S. militarism in general . . .
markpkessinger
Feb 2015
#21
Nothing says vacuuousness like cheerleading an unspecified/unlinked claim.
DisgustipatedinCA
Feb 2015
#104
Greenwald wants to spark a discussion about collateral killings from U.S. operated drones
bigtree
Feb 2015
#30
I actually agree our politicians use these tragedies and atrocities for their own political purpose
bigtree
Feb 2015
#241
It wasn't even about Obama. It dealt with blast effects on human tissue. Not flattering,
leveymg
Feb 2015
#33
Anti-US screed anyway. Greenwald fanboys are zeroing in on the Obama in your OP
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#55
I get the impression that you would like to eliminate all anti-USA "screed". Maybe Fox Noise is
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#67
Nice try at changing the subject, but no. The answer to wrongdoing by others is not "US Bad"
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#71
The linked article is the latest attempt by Greenwald and fans to minimize ISIS and
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#156
Could it be CT?Greenwald and fans conspiring to minimize ISIS atrocities by revealing US atrocities.
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#197
I can see why you wouldn't link to it since it isn't anything like your OP
riderinthestorm
Feb 2015
#66
The truth is hell. And they can't handle it. This fangirl is laughing her ass off
Autumn
Feb 2015
#77
Go figure, the more he comes out with his crap the clearer the picture becomes.
Thinkingabout
Feb 2015
#81
If you "understand" Greenwald then I dont know if you are following the truth.
Thinkingabout
Feb 2015
#110
He does not report historical facts, impossible to get the facts from him
Thinkingabout
Feb 2015
#109
After someone tells different tales on the same subject I mark them off on
Thinkingabout
Feb 2015
#117
I do not believe anything he has to say, zero confidence in his reporting.
Thinkingabout
Feb 2015
#107
I was going to ask if you were ashamed of your misinformation/propaganda but I see you are by
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#105
Unbelievably dishonest - you don't link to the article you're criticizing, you just expect
scarletwoman
Feb 2015
#106
The article is a painful reminder of the thousands of innocents killed by Obama's drones
Bonobo
Feb 2015
#108
Of course, Glenn, how's that PUTEEN doing (yes I know it's SNOWjob in Russia)?!1 n/t
UTUSN
Feb 2015
#135
No, they shouldn't delete. It took a long time for Greenwald to realize Bush was
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#185
"Anybody finally want to start admitting I've been right about him and his "brand" of agenda-based"
Hissyspit
Feb 2015
#155
Almost. He might have one if the Obama administration had dropped white phosphorous
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#170
This OP is a huge fail. Mr. Greenwald wrote an article pointing out the hypocracy
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#217