HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Glenn Greenwald Unethical...

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:31 PM

Glenn Greenwald Unethically Taped Witnesses While Working for Matt Hale, White Supremacist.

For me, Glenn Greenwald has always been an asshole. There's never been a point in time when I admired him, and then disliked him because of his stance on Obama. I have always found Glenn Greenwald to be unerringly poor at choosing who to associate with, and defend.

Case in point:

Glenn Greenwald made a choice to defend Matthew Hale in a series of civil lawsuits that Hale faced after he encouraged shooter Benjamin Smith to go on a two-state shooting rampage.

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

If you don't know who Hale is, well, he's a pretty famous white supremacist who is currently serving 40 years for soliciting the murder of a federal judge who ruled against him in a trademark case. Who put him away? Patrick Fitzgerald. (Yes. And Mr. Greenwald got an FBI visit regarding the passing of coded messages by Hale while under SAMS restrictions.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_F._Hale

Mr. Hale, for his role in the shootings, was sued by a number of survivors. This included a case filed by two teenage Orthodox Jewish boys. And another case filed by a Black minister. These people were selected by Benjamin Smith because they looked like the religious/ethnic minorities they are.

And Glenn Greenwald called them 'odious and repugnant' for suing his client--

Indeed the Center's suit appears to link Hale's rejection into the bar to Smith's "rampage." In late June, the state bar's Committee on Character and Fitness again denied Hale's petition to join the bar. Smith, who had testified as a character witness for Hale that April, began shooting two days later. "Immediately after the Illinois State Bar's decision and as part of the World Church of the Creator's war, Smith ... began a rampage of genocidal violence," the lawsuit states.

And while Hale himself has linked the shootings to his bar application in the past, he said Tuesday that it's ridiculous to think he had any control over Smith.

SNIP

Further, Greenwald said, "I find that the people behind these lawsuits are truly so odious and repugnant, that creates its own motivation for me."

The first suit, filed in state court by Chicago attorney Michael Ian Bender on behalf of two Orthodox Jewish teens shot at in Rogers Park, is pending, though a circuit judge in Chicago threw out allegations that Smith's parents were somehow responsible for the shootings.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/hale/hale33.html




It wasn't enough that Glenn took the case, which was his right to do. No--he had to insult the Plaintiffs--shooting victims. And then, he unethically taped the witnesses he subpoenaed, even directing their statements. A court found that he violated TWO separate rules--


"The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;" and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating "a lawyer shall not ... use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of person.""ANDERSON v. HALE 159 F.Supp.2d 1116 (2001)

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20011275159FSupp2d1116_11178.xml

He also attempted to manipulate the witness statements, per the magistrate's findings of fact-

"A 52-page transcript of one conversation showed defendants' counsel steered the conversation by eliciting particular responses to detailed questions, leading to more detailed questions, to lure the witness into damning statements for later use." Anderson v. Hale, 202 F.R.D. 548 (N.D.Ill. 2001),




That's right--Glenn Greenwald, self-proclaimed civil rights lawyer, violated the civil right of witnesses. The New York Bar later wrote a clarifying opinion on the ethics of said taping, referencing this case--

http://www2.nycbar.org/Publications/reports/show_html.php?rid=122


And of course, Glenn Greenwald thinks Matthew Hale is wrongly imprisoned by Prosecutor Fitzgerald.

"Mr. Greenwald, who said he believed that Mr. Hale was wrongly imprisoned, said he did not recall the exact message Ms. Hutcheson relayed to him, or the person it was intended for, but that he had declined to deliver it. He called the message "a caricature of what a coded message would be.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/09/national/09hale.html?pagewanted=print&position=



I've never been enthralled by Glenn. And I wasn't surprised to find out all this information, either. I wonder where, and if, Mr. Greenwald retains a law license.



208 replies, 61941 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 208 replies Author Time Post
Reply Glenn Greenwald Unethically Taped Witnesses While Working for Matt Hale, White Supremacist. (Original post)
msanthrope Jan 2012 OP
Kahuna Jan 2012 #1
bahrbearian Jan 2012 #2
msanthrope Jan 2012 #3
freshwest Jan 2012 #133
graham4anything Jun 2013 #202
freshwest Jun 2013 #203
AtomicKitten Jan 2012 #177
DevonRex Jan 2012 #4
msanthrope Jan 2012 #9
TheWraith Jan 2012 #115
freshwest Feb 2014 #208
MH1 Jan 2012 #5
SidDithers Jan 2012 #6
msanthrope Jan 2012 #12
MineralMan Jan 2012 #7
Spazito Jan 2012 #8
MineralMan Jan 2012 #10
Change has come Jan 2012 #164
dsc Jan 2012 #11
DJ13 Jan 2012 #15
ClassWarrior Jan 2012 #112
treestar Jan 2012 #166
msanthrope Jan 2012 #16
brentspeak Jan 2012 #28
msanthrope Jan 2012 #37
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #44
msanthrope Jan 2012 #57
MNBrewer Jan 2012 #55
msanthrope Jan 2012 #65
MNBrewer Jan 2012 #68
msanthrope Jan 2012 #83
MNBrewer Jan 2012 #85
msanthrope Jan 2012 #90
girl gone mad Jan 2012 #94
msanthrope Jan 2012 #99
girl gone mad Jan 2012 #101
msanthrope Jan 2012 #103
girl gone mad Jan 2012 #104
msanthrope Jan 2012 #105
girl gone mad Jan 2012 #107
msanthrope Jan 2012 #108
girl gone mad Jan 2012 #110
msanthrope Jan 2012 #111
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2012 #139
guanubian Jan 2012 #143
DirkGently Jan 2012 #119
Wind Dancer Jan 2012 #150
whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #13
Spazito Jan 2012 #21
whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #23
Spazito Jan 2012 #35
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #45
msanthrope Jan 2012 #60
Spazito Jan 2012 #74
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #91
Spazito Jan 2012 #95
geek tragedy Jan 2012 #127
joshcryer Jan 2012 #22
whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #24
msanthrope Jan 2012 #26
joshcryer Jan 2012 #36
whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #43
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #48
joshcryer Jan 2012 #52
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #56
joshcryer Jan 2012 #51
whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #54
joshcryer Jan 2012 #64
whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #77
joshcryer Jan 2012 #81
whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #92
joshcryer Jan 2012 #97
boppers Jan 2012 #120
whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #121
boppers Jan 2012 #124
Warren Stupidity Jan 2012 #100
whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #116
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #136
msanthrope Jan 2012 #109
brentspeak Jan 2012 #30
msanthrope Jan 2012 #39
CakeGrrl Jan 2012 #14
AtomicKitten Jan 2012 #82
Capn Sunshine Jan 2012 #169
jpgray Jan 2012 #17
MjolnirTime Jan 2012 #18
Whisp Jan 2012 #19
brentspeak Jan 2012 #20
msanthrope Jan 2012 #32
brentspeak Jan 2012 #38
msanthrope Jan 2012 #40
geek tragedy Jan 2012 #126
guanubian Jan 2012 #147
joshcryer Jan 2012 #25
joshcryer Jan 2012 #27
MNBrewer Jan 2012 #59
joshcryer Jan 2012 #69
MNBrewer Jan 2012 #70
joshcryer Jan 2012 #76
MNBrewer Jan 2012 #80
joshcryer Jan 2012 #84
MNBrewer Jan 2012 #88
joshcryer Jan 2012 #96
Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #29
baldguy Jan 2012 #31
msanthrope Jan 2012 #33
baldguy Jan 2012 #50
ProSense Jan 2012 #58
baldguy Jan 2012 #102
fascisthunter Jan 2012 #34
msanthrope Jan 2012 #42
MNBrewer Jan 2012 #62
msanthrope Jan 2012 #72
MNBrewer Jan 2012 #78
msanthrope Jan 2012 #87
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #66
msanthrope Jan 2012 #75
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #79
msanthrope Jan 2012 #98
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #113
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #93
SidDithers Jan 2012 #144
JNelson6563 Jan 2012 #41
Weisbergkevin Jan 2012 #46
ProSense Jan 2012 #53
MNBrewer Jan 2012 #63
SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #47
ProSense Jan 2012 #49
girl gone mad Jan 2012 #61
msanthrope Jan 2012 #67
girl gone mad Jan 2012 #71
msanthrope Jan 2012 #73
girl gone mad Jan 2012 #86
Odin2005 Jan 2012 #89
pmorlan1 Jan 2012 #106
frazzled Jan 2012 #114
msanthrope Jan 2012 #117
vaberella Jan 2012 #130
SidDithers Jan 2012 #145
vaberella Jan 2012 #118
joshcryer Jan 2012 #122
ProSense Jan 2012 #125
AtomicKitten Jan 2012 #128
DeathToTheOil Jan 2012 #123
vaberella Jan 2012 #129
_ed_ Jan 2012 #131
ProSense Jan 2012 #132
guanubian Jan 2012 #134
msanthrope Jan 2012 #135
guanubian Jan 2012 #142
msanthrope Jan 2012 #146
guanubian Jan 2012 #149
SidDithers Jan 2012 #167
great white snark Jan 2012 #137
Whisp Jan 2012 #138
msanthrope Jan 2012 #140
Whisp Jan 2012 #141
Jakes Progress Jan 2012 #148
guanubian Jan 2012 #151
msanthrope Jan 2012 #153
guanubian Jan 2012 #155
Puregonzo1188 Jan 2012 #162
guanubian Jan 2012 #163
Jakes Progress Jan 2012 #171
Puregonzo1188 Jan 2012 #191
guanubian Jan 2012 #192
guanubian Jan 2012 #194
guanubian Jan 2012 #195
guanubian Jan 2012 #197
Jakes Progress Jan 2012 #198
Rob H May 2012 #199
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #168
guanubian Jan 2012 #193
Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #196
Jakes Progress Jan 2012 #172
msanthrope Jan 2012 #152
Jakes Progress Jan 2012 #170
yurbud Jan 2012 #154
guanubian Jan 2012 #156
yurbud Jan 2012 #157
yurbud Jan 2012 #158
guanubian Jan 2012 #160
yurbud Jan 2012 #178
guanubian Jan 2012 #179
guanubian Jan 2012 #161
guanubian Jan 2012 #159
Number23 Jan 2012 #165
msanthrope Jan 2012 #173
ProSense Jan 2012 #174
msanthrope Jan 2012 #175
Number23 Jan 2012 #176
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2012 #185
librechik Jan 2012 #180
Jakes Progress Jan 2012 #181
MH1 Jan 2012 #182
librechik Jan 2012 #183
MH1 Jan 2012 #190
msanthrope Jan 2012 #186
treestar Jun 2013 #204
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2012 #184
msanthrope Jan 2012 #187
Tarheel_Dem Jan 2012 #188
guanubian Jan 2012 #189
thucythucy Jun 2013 #200
morningfog Jun 2013 #201
SleeplessinSoCal Jul 2013 #205
flamingdem Jul 2013 #206
msanthrope Jul 2013 #207

Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:33 PM

1. IDWGDI ...

It's different when Glenn does it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kahuna (Reply #1)


Response to Kahuna (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:36 PM

3. "Wiretapping for me, but not for thee...." nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kahuna (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:30 AM

133. This is so complicated IDK what he did. But this and another thread makes him seem like O'Keefe.

I was unaware of unethical things he has done until I read some of the articles posted here recently. I'd only read his writings on Salon about the GOP. He has a certain insight and extremely active.

It is his actions on the individuals used in his causes I find troubling. He has a disconnect between the harm he is causing and his zeal for his causes. He appears to use and discard people as if they are pawns in a game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #133)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 10:48 PM

202. I have not been a fan of GG's since day one.

 

as I have said before, just because he was against W, doesn't mean much at all, because let's face it,
by the end of W's term, Dick Cheney was against W too.
So the faux message is meaningless.

And when one can find a Ron Paul/ Rand Paul connection in a few seconds ON GOOGLE where any info including people's phones can be found either for free or for (according to the ads, $4.95), this whole thing is yet another day another smear against the President.

and there is NO president in the past, including all the greats like FDR and Lincoln that did not do everything they could
(and Lincoln did it, THEN won reelection, the it was ratified that what he did was indeed allowed).

I myself am more afraid of Rand Paul, who today a poll showed was leading for 2016 in Michigan in the republican primary,
and I wondered, how in the world did Kentucky elect this clear and present and most unqualified person to be their senator.

Then I wiki'd and saw this

from wiki(cut/paste, money spent in the election that Rand won-

Candidate (party) Receipts Disbursements Cash on hand Debt

Rand Paul (R) $6,727,033 $6,068,547 $658,484 $0
Jack Conway (D) $5,027,318 $4,370,349 $684,177 $460,794
Source: Federal Election Commission


and the person who whines and whines about big money, look how much more Rand Paul spent on buying an election
one that was ultra dirty in a state, that is not the biggest, and overspent (I don't have my calculator handy) what, 30-35% more
than his opponent to buy his seat.

Wonder who the NRA endorsed in that race(no I don't).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #202)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 11:29 PM

203. Yes, the big money is there. I'm not sure who, but a DUer posted this and I saved it to read :

But there are, on the internet, also some individuals, and groups, who clearly promote agendas that coincide with the same agendas as the wealthiest and most powerful interests on the planet.

DU, Kos, etc. may seem insignificant to some, but as we all know,

(1) Money strongly influences information
(2) Information becomes public opinion
(3) Public opinion elects power
(4) Power greatly influences profit margins and the distribution of power
(5) The outcome of any election can depend on a single vote

I'm just sayin'...that there are people out there with unlimited wealth, who have no qualms about sparing no expense in using their money to spread information that will form public opinion, in order to elect candidates favorable to their private profit and power interests.

There are no restrictions, or financial considerations, preventing them from doing so. If I were of their corrupt ilk, corrupt ilk meaning individuals such as the Koch Brothers, I would definitely spend a few pennies to sway public opinion in my favor, everywhere, in order to promote my self interests.

(Come to think of it, I would probably even help finance a think tank to promote my self-serving agenda. Makes good logical sense.)

I would certainly finance individuals and groups whose function it would be to swing public opinion, and the Democratic Party, to the right in any way that I possibly could. Being filthy rich beyond comprehension, I would most assuredly do this. Actually, I would probably not even have to think about it, as it would be the task of some of my highly talented, extremely well paid employees, to insure that this was done...

The Koches and other cranky conservative billionaires fit this picture very well. They have unlimited money and the USSC decision on Citizens United. They will buy public opinion between now and 2014.

Their intention is not hidden - they intend nothing less than to 'starve the government until it is small enough to drown in a bathtub' like a helpless baby. That is our government, the one people have fought to preserve because of unique ideals in the world, and democracy, which the Koch brothers think is weak and needs to be replaced with their strong man fascist model.

Along with over half of our population. Have we forgotten their words about us voters?

They call us parasites, godless, lazy, immoral, stupid breeders. They will do anything they can to root us out of their vision for a new world order.

Since they know it scares us, and it should, they taunt us by calling our leaders fascists, authoritarians, etc. But their replacement of what they call our morally weak, corrupt and unjust rule of the masses, will be the real deal.

They won't give up and we are the ones who will lose by not being united. They have found our achille's heel and are going to strike us there every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kahuna (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:13 PM

177. So it seems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:36 PM

4. Woah. That's fucked up.

I'll read this in detail later. But thank you for the info.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:48 PM

9. You are quite welcome. I hope to do a little more digging regarding the Hale case and Glenn's

interactions with Patrick Fitzgerald.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:25 AM

115. It is indeed.

For me, I think what's most fucked up is the comments he made about the victims. It's one thing to take a case because you believe everyone deserves good representation, even people like white supremacists. It's quite another to go around badmouthing and slandering the people who were SHOT by said white supremacists.

And yet, this guy is held up as a superhero of the angry left, along with ex-neocons like Cenk Uygur, people like Jane Hamsher who call loyal Democrats "the stupidest motherfuckers on the planet" while shilling for Grover Norquist and being paid to elect Republicans, etcetera.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #115)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 04:19 PM

208. Just stumbled on this again from another thread. You're right, extremely disturbing! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:37 PM

5. Wow, that seems rather odious.

I didn't know. I knew I didn't care for much that I'd seen by him that was posted here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:37 PM

6. Good post...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:52 PM

12. I love Sgt. Hulka. He's my big toe. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:40 PM

7. Interesting. All of this is new to me.

Thanks for digging it up. I'll read all the links. If true, it's not a good thing, I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:45 PM

8. wow....just Wow!

illegally recording witnesses, conduct being found "unethical under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;" and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating "a lawyer shall not ... use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of person.""


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:49 PM

10. But, he's a progressive, you see...

It's OK if he does that stuff...

This all took place a long time ago, too. People change, you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:19 PM

164. Are you saying people don't change?

Racists or homophobes can't change? Can we trust former Republicans?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:49 PM

11. Gee funny how you left this out

Given the rhetoric in the papers filed with respect to this difficult ethical question, we wish to clarify one last matter. We are applying rules here, not judging character. As the magistrate judge noted, although ultimately unsuccessful, defendants' arguments were reasonable. Defense counsel could have reasonably believed that his conduct was permissible. Although we find that his conduct did violate the rules, our rejection of his position does not equate to an indictment as an unethical person.

wonder how that happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:55 PM

15. That doesnt fit the orchestrated campaign to slime a blogger that dares question Obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:10 AM

112. It has nothing to do with Obama.

People who slime progressive bloggers couldn't give a rat's ass about Obama, other than the fact that they can use him to divide Dems.

NGU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:42 PM

166. In response to those who dare question Glenn

If Obama can be put under scrutiny, so can Glen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:58 PM

16. Yes. Being told you are not so much unethical as incompetent is something every lawyer clings to.

I am sure that Mr. Greenwald's position was entirely reasonable, since he neglected to clutter his argument with the necessary local rules.

But ignorance of the law is no defense....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:11 PM

28. Ignorance of one's own cited link is no defense, either

Maybe next time you'll fully read your own links before posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:19 PM

37. You mean "The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical"

"under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;" and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating "a lawyer shall not ... use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of person."

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=20011275159FSupp2d1116_11178.xml&docbase=CsLwAr2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7

Glenn can comfort himself with the knowledge that the court does not pass judgements on character--but conduct.

Conduct they found unethical. It might have helped Glenn if he had read the local rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:27 PM

44. Defense counsel could have reasonably believed that his conduct was permissible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #44)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:44 PM

57. Since he neglected to read the local rules, that's true. So he can always claim ignorance

of Illinois local rules.

But, I listed the NY Bar clarification--what he did wasn't permissible in NY State, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #16)


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #55)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:50 PM

65. How dare I quote Glenn Greenwald!!!! In a thread about, well, Glenn Greenwald.

And how dare I cite court filings!!! In a thread about a lawyer, who files stuff in court.....

When Ron Paul has his newsletter quoted back to him, do you think that will be smearing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #65)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:52 PM

68. I've seen you quote people who purport to quote Greenwald, that's it

you also mischaracterize the court filings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #68)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:13 PM

83. Oh, dear. Was poor Glenn misquoted? So many times??? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #83)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:15 PM

85. I don't know

It's not possible to tell. If you can provide that quote in context, maybe i'll believe you. Otherwise, I think it's B.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #85)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:18 PM

90. Which quote??? I can't make you click the links and read. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #83)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:26 PM

94. All of the quotes point to one source.

A source which no longer seems to exist.

I've also got to wonder why you would link to the Rick Ross Institute. This hardly seems to be a legitimate organization.

You're calling Greenwald unethical on the basis of information which comes directly from someone who was himself charged with unlawful imprisonment and found liable for conspiracy to deprive a man of his civil rights and religious liberties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #94)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:55 PM

99. American Lawyer Media/April 6, 2000 By Molly McDonough is the source.

It's archived on the rick ross site, and I linked there because I can't link you to Lexis. But that was explained by other posters.

Are you alleging that Rick Ross changed the article???? Or are you just splitting hairs because you don't have anything else to rebut Glenn's comments?

Rick ross maintains quite an anti-white supremacist archive--which is why there's PLENTY of stuff on Greenwald on there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #99)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:34 PM

101. Then you should link to that source.

You claim that Greenwald is not credible because he did something unethical, yet your own source was charged and found guilty of doing something far more unethical than what Greenwald was accused of.

That's hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #101)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:42 PM

103. Um, I did. Do you not understand how an archive works?

Let me give you an example. Judicial Watch are crazy ass mofos. But they archive judicial disclosure forms that are not available other places. So if you link to one of those forms, let's say Clarence Thomas's form, are you using Judicial Watch as a primary source? Of course you are not. They merely hold the archive.

But I think you know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #103)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:46 PM

104. You should not be using questionable sources..

when attempting to trash someone's credibility.

But I think you know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #104)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:48 PM

105. American Lawyer Media/April 6, 2000 By Molly McDonough is the source. How is she not

credible?

Is it that you simply do not understand how things are archived on a website?

Edited to add--do you understand that if you link an AP story from FOX, you are still linking an AP story, right, not a FOX one? If you link a Reuters off of HuffPo, the primary source is Reuters, not HuffPo....I mean, this fairly elementary stuff.

Do you really not get this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #105)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:03 AM

107. You didn't link to American Lawyer Media or Molly McDonough.

You posted a supposed copy of an American Lawyer Media article from a questionable web site run by a convicted criminal who clearly has a bias against Greenwald.

Anything can be archived, legitimate or not.

If you want to publicly smear someone's credibility, it would behoove you to actually use a credible source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #107)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:36 AM

108. You are posting falsely about Mr Ross. He was acquitted by jury trial***.

Lots of people, like American Neo Nazis and Scientologists don't like Rick Ross because he maintains an extensive archive on them.

You know the kid he was supposed to have harmed???? THANKFULLY, Jason Scott fired his Scientologist lawyer and hired Rick Ross to deprogram him. He settled his lawsuit for 5k and 200 hours of deprogramming.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19961223&slug=2366495

(NOTE--this is WaPo article that is ARCHIVED by the seattle times!!!! Just like Rick Ross archived the article on Matt Hale that included the Greenwald quote. SEE HOW THAT WORKS???)

Are you a Scientologist?

Do you really think that you can defend Glenn Greenwald with Scientology propaganda???? I mean, I'm laughing a bit here--

Are you seriously suggesting that Rick Ross altered a web article? To defame Glen Greenwald, a DECADE+plus ago?

Okay--you don't like one of my sources, and you are using Scientology propaganda to defend Glen Greenwald. You've made my night. I suppose you think the judicial opinions are fabricated, too???? I suppose you think Matt Hale was mis-characterized??

Sorry, I wanted to add this on edit--I really, really hope you are now aware of the Scientology angle of your claims--essentially, you are claiming that rick ross altered an article about Matt Hale over a decade ago in order to defame Glen Greenwald. Seriously. You've repeated a false claim that he is a convicted criminal regarding Jason Scott (another Scientology claim.) I really do want you to explain the court filings, though.

*** in the matter of Jason Scott. According to a website that also claims he is a 'homosexual' he may have been on probation 30 years ago. Let me warn you about this site that 'exposes' Rick Ross--it's disgusting.

http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/homosexual.htm




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #108)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:52 AM

110. Yeah, I'm a Scientologist..

using Scientology propaganda.

That's the ticket.



You clearly lack real, credible confirming evidence or you would post it rather than lashing out at me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #110)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:04 AM

111. Are you still suggesting that an article from a decade ago was altered to defame Glenn Greenwald?

Are you suggesting that the court filings were altered, too?

Finally, with regards to the suggestion that Rick Ross is a convicted criminal, the only site I could find that backed that claim also suggested he needed to be exposed for his 'homosexuality.'

Given your tirade downthread about what you thought was bigoted commentary about Glenn Greenwald, do you have a source for your claims that does not attempt to bring Mr. Ross's sexual orientation into the discussion?

On edit--even if you don't like where one article is archived (you still haven't said anything about the source, mind you) are you maintaining that the legal filings were also altered???? To what purpose?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #104)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 06:02 PM

139. Not to pick a fight but that would sort of be like saying

FOX News aired a copy of Obama's birth certificate ergo the validity of Obama's birth certificate is in doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #104)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 06:49 PM

143. Zzzz

The legal documentation is easily uncovered in Lexis and the news story in which Greenwald is quoted calling the shooting victims "odious and repugnant" is easily uncovered in Nexis.

REVEREND STEPHEN TRACY ANDERSON, Plaintiff, vs. MATTHEW F. HALE, THE WORLD CHURCH OF THE CREATOR, an unincorporated association, and THE ESTATE OF BENJAMIN NATHANIEL SMITH, Defendants.

No. 00 C 2021

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

159 F. Supp. 2d 1116; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13001

and

Plans to use historic Anti-Klan Act to bankrupt Matt Hale
American Lawyer Media/April 6, 2000
By Molly McDonough

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:52 AM

119. This is so sad. What's next, his guidance counselor said he was "surly?"

A few other things left out of the Wiki entry:

"In March 2009, he was selected, along with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, as the recipient of the first annual Izzy Award by the Park Center for Independent Media, an award named after independent journalist I.F. "Izzy" Stone and devoted to rewarding excellence in independent journalism. The selection panel cited Greenwald's "pathbreaking journalistic courage and persistence in confronting conventional wisdom, official deception and controversial issues."
In October 2010, he won the Online Journalism Award for Best Commentary, for his investigative article on the arrest of U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning as the alleged leaker to WikiLeaks. The same year, he was a Finalist for the National Magazine Awards category of "excellence in online reporting and commentary published as a blog.""

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #119)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:15 PM

150. Great post!

The ongoing attacks made by the same posters against Greenwald on Democratic "Underground" are ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:54 PM

13. OMFG!

You actually linked to this guy???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Ross_(consultant)

WTF?

*edit - link goes to wrong Rick Ross. Search wikipedia for Rick A Ross

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:01 PM

21. I went to this link provided in the OP...

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20011275159FSupp2d1116_11178.xml

Quite comprehensive, worth a read.

snippet from the above link:

"Defendants' attacks on the magistrate judge's opinion are unpersuasive. They argue that the plain meaning of the rule does not prohibit surreptitious taping. But the law recognizes, in countless areas, that omitting material facts can be as misleading as affirmative misstatements. Attorneys, as officers of the court, are held to a particularly high standard of candor. This may include volunteering information that is not explicitly requested. That a conversation is being recorded is a material fact that must be disclosed by an attorney. Defendants also argue that modern technology and norms make the 1974 ABA opinion obsolete. The fact that recording conversations is much simpler and more pervasive now does not make it proper. If anything, it makes the need for this rule more compelling. The magistrate judge did not accept the ABA opinion blindly. He addressed each of these arguments, and his reasoning in rejecting them is thorough and logical. We agree with Magistrate Judge Ashman's reasoning in its entirety, and consequently need not repeat it here."

WTF indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #21)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:06 PM

23. You best look him up on wikipedia, it's a shocker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #23)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:16 PM

35. well, wikipedia is good for geography...

not much else, unfortunately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #21)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:28 PM

45. Defense counsel could have reasonably believed that his conduct was permissible

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #45)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:46 PM

60. Yes--when he decided not the read the local rules, I am sure Mr. Greenwald thought

he was okay.

However, the NY State Bar opinion I posted also suggests that his action were not permissible in NY State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #45)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:03 PM

74. As someone else pointed out...

He was either willfully unethical or uninterested in understanding the laws of the State in which he "recorded telephone conversations with various third party witnesses, without disclosing to those witnesses that they were being recorded."

Take your pick, either way, not too impressive, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #74)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:22 PM

91. Lawyers are rebuked regularly. I really can't get too worked up about this.

I can get worked up about domestic surveillance, endless war, innocents blown to smithereens and the racist drug war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #91)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:27 PM

95. Okay n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #91)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 04:29 AM

127. So, Greenwald's invasion of privacy isn't troubling

because he isn't the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:05 PM

22. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_A._Ross

While I could question this guys methods, he seems like he's an anti-cultist and I can get behind that.

In any event, the link isn't really to Rick A. Ross, it's to a news article that Rick's site had archived, written by Molly McDonough. If you want to trash the source perhaps look into her back history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #22)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:07 PM

24. And that's why

You're *you*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:10 PM

26. American Lawyer Media/April 6, 2000 By Molly McDonough is the source.

It's hosted on either Lexis/Nexis or Westlaw, which I can't hotlink too.

So I used the Rick Ross link, since that would ensure you could read it, too.

Has Rick Ross altered the story in any way? He has a treasure trove of Hale materials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #26)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:16 PM

36. I already explained that to them.

They still don't get it.

Then again, given the implicit support for Paul, perhaps they just hate anti-cultists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #36)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:27 PM

43. Why do you refer to me as 'them'

Is it so you can tar me as one these mysterious, omnipresent Paul supporters? Nice racket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:30 PM

48. It's the new PUMA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #48)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:36 PM

52. "Singular they" as the "new PUMA"?

Are you fucking kidding me? What the fuck!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #52)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:44 PM

56. Nice racket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:36 PM

51. I don't know if you're a male or female, thus I use singular they.

I'm sorry if that offends you, but I have been doing it for years, and usually people are not bothered by it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #51)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:40 PM

54. No, I'm referring to the body of your post

where you site "the implicit support for Ron Paul". Really, what the hell are you talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #54)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:50 PM

64. I dunno. I've recognized implicit support for Paul in your posts.

I think it's a fair assessment given that you think he's being unfairly used as a "boogieman" when I think philosophically DU should be made aware of Ron Paul's far right wing ideology, and that there's absolutely nothing wrong with calling Ron Paul's ideology out. It only stood to reason that being so shook up over an "anti-cultist" that a Ron Paul supporter may be intimidated by such a link.

Though, of course, no such link existed, it was still quite interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #64)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:05 PM

77. I'm amazed you're allowed to get away with this kind of stuff

If anyone is curious what joshcryer is basing his "fair assessment" of my "implicit support for Paul" on, please read this thread he referrences: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2471925

Also, your other statement about me being "shook up over an anti-cultist", is bullshit. The part of the Wikipedia profile I found most interesting was his early life, when he was knocking over liquor stores.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #77)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:10 PM

81. I think it was a fair assessment given the information available.

Note, I didn't actually say you were, I said you may be, which I think is fair, given the link you've provided so that others might see it. Ron Paul is no boogieman, he and his supporters have been posting repeatedly about him, some even signed up to spam the board, others seem to be long term supporters. Even if you think Ron Paul is just a "broken clock" who is right about some issues, why spend so much time fixated on it? Who spends so much time posting about broken clocks?

In any event, Rick Ross has absolutely no connection with the OP at all, which has been established.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #81)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:23 PM

92. Total garbage

The first thing anyone who reads that thread will notice, is my incredulity that any DUers would actually be supporting Paul. I'm incredulous because Ron Paul is a fucking moron. Later in the thread where I call him a bogeyman, it's simply to point out how the specter of Paul is being used to distract. Try some honesty sometime, you might like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #92)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:32 PM

97. I'm sorry for presenting that assumption, though.

Anyone is free to read the thread and come to their own conclusions. I personally do not think that the anti-Ron Paul sentiment is "a little forced and over the top" nor do I believe that there "seems to be a major effort to rally everyone against a bogeyman so we don't have to deal with our own house."

Indeed, I do think there are a number of DUers here who will try to discredit anyone or anything based upon their own notions directly related to presumed progressive support of Ron Paul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #77)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:56 AM

120. "knocking over liquor stores"?

That's nowhere in the current wikipedia article, nor any version of the article for over a month.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #120)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:21 AM

121. You're right

It was a jewelry store. Thanks for the stunningly salient correction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #121)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:51 AM

124. It was salient enough to be mentioned.

Does "WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES" mean anything to you? That's why it's in the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #54)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:10 PM

100. There is a new game: get your opponent ronpauled out of here.

It is pretty despicable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #100)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:34 AM

116. Brilliant!

What a genius play!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #100)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 05:39 PM

136. I've got a witch hunt list going...

Who's hunting and who is the hunted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #36)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:38 AM

109. You should read later in the thread--they're using Scientology propaganda to defend

Greenwald....it's priceless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to brentspeak (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:21 PM

39. Yes--did he change the source article? I couldn't hotlink from Lexis, but

his site has a trove of anti-white supremacist stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 08:54 PM

14. Stop trying to silence Greenwald!

He has so much more righteous criticism of the President ahead of him! Why are you attacking him?










just in case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CakeGrrl (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:12 PM

82. You never loved him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #82)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 01:42 AM

169. Leave Glenn alone!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:00 PM

17. And we unethically tape millions.

I don't like Glenn. The guy is self-obsessed even for a blogger, and there is no lack of cases as above where he showed thoroughly poor judgment.

On the wickedness of some policies initiated by Bush and continued by Obama, however, he says much that is true, important, and rarely heard. I wouldn't choose Greenwald as my spokesman for these criticisms, let alone Ron Paul. When either makes a criticism I agree with, my agreement extends just that far. It does not extend to support, promotion, or worship of the person who makes it.

Further, when Obama does something I disagree with strongly, my disagreement extends just that far. It does not extend to my abandoning him in 2012 or to throwing everything of worth he's ever done into a bonfire of political purism.

When will people finally understand that assholes who oppose awful things do not in their opposition make awful things somehow worthy of support?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:01 PM

18. well, well. I can't say that I'm surprised.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:01 PM

19. bookmarking.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:01 PM

20. The district court specifically declined to label Greenwald as "unethical"

Did you actually read your own link? They said he screwed up and broke the rules, but that was it.



http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=2&xmldoc=20011275159FSupp2d1116_11178.xml&docbase=CsLwAr2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7

Given the rhetoric in the papers filed with respect to this difficult ethical question, we wish to clarify one last matter. We are applying rules here, not judging character. As the magistrate judge noted, although ultimately unsuccessful, defendants' arguments were reasonable. Defense counsel could have reasonably believed that his conduct was permissible. Although we find that his conduct did violate the rules, our rejection of his position does not equate to an indictment as an unethical person.


In any case, Greenwald remains correct concerning Obama. Does that bother you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:14 PM

32. "The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel's conduct unethical"

under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;" and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating "a lawyer shall not ... use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of person."

Now, his conduct is unethical under the rules. That does not mean the court has decided that he is an unethical person--it is not for the court to say.

That is the kind of parsing that Glenn can cling to--he's not an unethical person, just blissfully unaware of the local rules.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #32)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:20 PM

38. "It's not for the court to say"

Which, as your own link demonstrates, is hogwash, because the district court which reviewed the matter specifically went out of its way to add that he wasn't unethical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #38)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:23 PM

40. It's not for the court to pass judgments of character, but of law. That's what they did. Glenn

can comfort himself with the idea that he's not a 'bad' dude, just one ignorant of the local rules.

And he merited a NY Bar clarifying opinion. Kudos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #38)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 04:27 AM

126. They did not say he wasn't unethical.

Merely that they were not judging his character one way or the other.

But they did find his behavior unethical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:04 PM

147. Zzzzz

The court made a nice distinction between Greenwald's conduct and himself, which for the purposes of *our* judgment -- especially since Greenwald rails constantly about privacy, surveillance and related rights violations -- is insignificant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:09 PM

25. It's becoming clear to me that Glen Greenwald actually likes the Libertarian concepts...

...espoused by Ron Paul. It's not that he's ignorant that Ron Paul isn't really anti-surveillance state, it's that he's for no laws regarding surveillance protections, rendering it a fully acceptable practice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:10 PM

27. In this thread, DUer's will defend taping without permission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:45 PM

59. In other threads, DUer's defend incinerating brown children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #59)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:53 PM

69. Link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #69)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:55 PM

70. Look at any thread that discusses Obama's drone wars

It's all A.O.K. because the AUMF gives Obama permission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #70)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:05 PM

76. Don't see 'em. Interesting.

I'm against targeted killing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #76)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:09 PM

80. guess you were lucky and missed that particular low point in DU history, then

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #80)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:14 PM

84. How long ago was it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #84)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:16 PM

88. It was at it's worst right after Awlaki's kid was murdered, along with his cousin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #88)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:28 PM

96. Ahh, yes, that one.

I was against it. People were defending it based upon the auspices of enemy combatants I think.

It was funny because people thought I was for it but I came out against it and they had eggs on their faces.

I did say I didn't know if it was illegal, however, that has no bearing on whether or not I support something. Some laws are not just, we can be against those laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:12 PM

29. Geezus Christ.

That is unbelievable!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:13 PM

31. Good job spreading RW smears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #31)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:16 PM

33. Public court documents are RW smears??? Then Greenwald's fucked. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #33)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:32 PM

50. Karl Rove would be proud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #50)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:45 PM

58. Yes, he'd

"Karl Rove would be proud."

...be proud of Greenwald, who likes to attack random people on the Internet.



He did apologize:

I affirm my distaste for photographic leader-glorification, but I'll rescind my invocation of Leni Riefenstahl as too inflammatory & extreme

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/05/925827/-Glenn-Greenwald-Apologizes,-and--


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #58)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:36 PM

102. And taking statements out of context & twisting their meaning is a very Rovian thing to do.

Keep up the good work!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:16 PM

34. Glenn Greenwald is a great Journalist

you'll have to do better than this to convince those who care more about truth, truth that harms a politician. Sell outs are so pathetic. The right wing and corporatists thank you for your service.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #34)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:25 PM

42. Corporatists? You do know that Greenwald thinks Citizen's United was rightly decided, correct?

I'm betting you have an explanation for that. I can't wait to hear it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:48 PM

62. I know we're not supposed to accuse DUer's of being liars, so I won't

but get your facts straight.

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/

What the Supreme Court got right

"The Supreme Court yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, declared unconstitutional (on First Amendment grounds) campaign finance regulations which restrict the ability of corporations and unions to use funds from their general treasury for “electioneering” purposes. The case, Citizens United v. FEC, presents some very difficult free speech questions, and I’m deeply ambivalent about the court’s ruling. There are several dubious aspects of the majority’s opinion (principally its decision to invalidate the entire campaign finance scheme rather than exercising ”judicial restraint” through a narrower holding). Beyond that, I believe that corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture. But there are also very real First Amendment interests implicated by laws which bar entities from spending money to express political viewpoints."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #62)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:00 PM

72. Thank you for posting the column that Greenwald wrote in support of the decision.

I think you might want to read more of it than the first paragraph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #72)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:07 PM

78. I did read it and I find it well reasoned and argued

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #78)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:16 PM

87. Like the part where he compares the US judicial system to North Korea's?

Oh. Okay.

I am loving this thread!!! Who knew we'd get defenders of CU!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:51 PM

66. So does the ACLU in strictly 1st Amendment grounds.

You want to change it? Then, do the hard work like people did in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #66)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:04 PM

75. And I think th ACLU is as mistaken as Greenwald. It's happened. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #75)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:08 PM

79. Explain on Constitutioon grounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #79)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:48 PM

98. I'm not sure what "Constitutioon grounds" are. If you start a thread about it,

I am sure I will participate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #98)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:12 AM

113. Ooh. Clever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #75)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:24 PM

93. Why? Make a Constitutional argument as to why they are wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 06:52 PM

144. No, he's not...

He's an opinion columnist, with particularly strident, unquestioning followers.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:23 PM

41. Oh dear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:28 PM

46. This thread: 13 recs. Thread on a pro-Greenwald thread earlier: 38 recs

 

Attacks against Greenwald on the internet are almost always a result of reactions to highly-recommended pro-Greenwald threads elsewhere, such as the one cited in the title of this post. Thus, this OP would not have criticized Greenwald if Greenwald had not written the Ron Paul article: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/ today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weisbergkevin (Reply #46)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:39 PM

53. This

"This thread: 13 recs. Thread on a pro-Greenwald thread earlier: 38 threads"

...one has 24: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297462

"Thus, this OP would not have criticized Greenwald if Greenwald had not written the Ron Paul article"

Well he did refer to a DUer as "simple-minded." I don't think that was well-received.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #53)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:49 PM

63. which one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:29 PM

47. Thanks...

The other 10,000 threads about Greenwald weren't enough. This one did it for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:31 PM

49. Interesting!

It's fascinating to read the defense of Greenwald and the justification for hyping Ron Paul.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:48 PM

61. Plus he's gay!

Did you know he's gay? He dates a man!

Isn't that what you really want to say, since you seem to think bigoted posts belong on the Greatest page at DU?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #61)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:52 PM

67. I cannot tell what being gay has to do with this thread, but I'm willing to hear your theory. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #67)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 09:56 PM

71. No theory, just a statement of fact.

You voted to put an extremely bigoted, homophobic post about Greenwald on the Greatest page.

That alone makes me seriously question your motives, and your judgment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #71)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:02 PM

73. Oh, I think you've gone beyond questioning, haven't you? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #73)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:15 PM

86. No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 10:17 PM

89. Glenn is dead to me, now. UGH!

To think I used to like his articles!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jan 1, 2012, 11:56 PM

106. lol

Oh boy, yet another let's trash Glenn Greenwald thread with the usual suspects. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:25 AM

114. I've been posting this story for years here

I'm glad it's finally getting some attention.

Don't think that it's unrelated to why the man doesn't still practice law.

But the story is even worse than you portray. Hale was eventually tried and convicted for soliciting the murder of the judge in this case (from an FBI informant). Even after--I repeat, even AFTER--he was charged with this serious crime Greenwald defended him in print, in the NYT.

In a total coincidence (or perhaps not), a year later, Judge Lefkow's husband and mother were found murdered in her home. Hale claimed he had nothing to do with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #114)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:37 AM

117. It's even worse than THAT--

Greenwald got a visit from the FBI because Hale was under SAMS while in custody on the Lefkow charge.

Apparently, coded messages were passed, and Greenwald didn't report his involvement.

Guess who the prosecutor was? Patrick Fitzgerald. And after that, Greenwald wasn't practicing, and strangely, has been very silent on the current grand jury of Patrick Fitzgerald's in Chicago....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #117)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:38 AM

130. Wow...there are just no words the more I hear. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #117)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 06:55 PM

145. Yikes...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #114)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 01:47 AM

118. Wow. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #114)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:24 AM

122. Wow, DU, how far we've fallen to defend scum like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #114)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:26 AM

125. Fascinating n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #114)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 07:03 AM

128. Holy shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:46 AM

123. All on the front page of GD right now. Do you see the futility?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:34 AM

129. This story really freaks me the fuck out.n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 09:33 AM

131. Remember when Glenn Greenwald

claimed the power to assassinate American citizens, appointed Tim Geithner, and negotiated away the public option?

Me either...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _ed_ (Reply #131)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:30 AM

132. Is this

"Remember when Glenn Greenwald"

...justification?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 05:11 PM

134. I would have preferred that you link to my work...

... but I'm glad to see more than a few people pay attention to this since I exposed it in 2008. I hope it continues to gain attention.

http://bit.ly/gD4vFU
http://bit.ly/A6FPKU

I've written a lot of other stuff about the singularly noxious Greenwald, so please click the "Glenn Greenwald" tags on my blogs. "Understanding Glenn Greenwald", though it is slightly technical, should be of interest to people of left-liberal sympathies who are attracted to Greenwald's (and for that matter Ron Paul's) attacks on Bush, Obama, the GWOT and related matters.

Thanks,

John-Paul Pagano

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guanubian (Reply #134)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 05:34 PM

135. Oh my!! I went with the legal source....

as you can see from reading this thread, linking to blogs inevitably results in posters claiming that the blog is biased, particularly when the blog exposes some 'great liberal thinker' like Greenwald.

But you deserve the credit! I think the next time I post the original legal source, I will include a hat tip to any blog I found helpful...no matter the shitstorm that provokes.

WELCOME TO DU!!! This is an awesome place to post your stuff!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #135)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 06:14 PM

142. Thanks, it's not a big deal.

Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)

And as I said, I'm happy more than a few people are paying attention to this now. It appears that Greenwald's "rape a nun" comment bestirred a larger-than-usual shit-storm that caused a few people to find that he secretly recorded Hale witnesses. I've been seeing some pass through my blogs.

Like you, I've never understood Greenwald's appeal. He's one of the worst writers I've read -- even rarely when I agree with him -- and palpably an awful public persona.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guanubian (Reply #142)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 06:56 PM

146. I'm glad you got some traffic. The 'rape a nun' fracas is disgusting--

Imani Grandy has every right to call him out over that.

I'm still pretty interested in the Hale/Greenwald/Fitzgerald connection, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #146)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:13 PM

149. So nasty for so long

I certainly don't wish to stand athwart the tide of ANY mass denunciation of Greenwald, but when I saw ABL going after him and people piling on, all I could think was, "They wait until NOW to go after this guy?" He's been so nasty for so long, you know? And I thought it was ethically worse when Greenwald implied, without the slightest evidence or argument beyond assertion, that Adrian Lamo was faking Asperger's, sneering that it was a "somewhat fashionable autism diagnosis which many stars in the computer world have also claimed." It was identical to when Rush Limbaugh claimed Michael J. Fox was faking Parkinson's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guanubian (Reply #134)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:00 AM

167. Welcome to DU...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 05:50 PM

137. Glenn has always oozed douchebaggery.

This is yet another affirmation. Thanks for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to great white snark (Reply #137)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 05:54 PM

138. he seems to have replaced Jane Hamster around here lately.

 

same kind of assholioness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #138)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 06:02 PM

140. He's treasurer of her PAC--

Interesting article on the financial connections between Hamsher and Greenwald.


"But this irony doesn't stop there. The very same Glenn Greenwald who is accusing the SEIU of trying to use OWS' language (heaven forbid!) for their own purposes (which, as a union, just happens to be supporting working people), penned another column earlier last week trying to sell (and promote) winter gear for the OWS protesters being disbursed by the notorious Firedoglake. But of course, Greenwald fails to mention that he stands to financially gain from donations to FDL, as the treasurer of FDL's PAC, Accountability Now, and his company, DMDM Enterprises, is used to taking money for "administrative expenses" from Accountability Now.

An examination of FEC reports shows that Greenwald's DMDM Enterprises received more than $40,000 from FDL's Accountability Now from 2008-2010, and of course, we have no idea how much more he has received as salary as Treasurer. (For those interested, yes, I have been working on a story on this with some help, and it keeps getting pushed back for different reasons - but expect a campaign finance story on Greenwald, Hamsher et al. to drop soon).

You would think the self-promoting epitome of virtue would bother to mention that he holds financial interest in the success of a campaign he is selling through his column on Salon. Something about disclosure and all."

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/11/glenn-greenwald-occupy-glass-houses-and.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #140)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 06:13 PM

141. interesting stuff.

 

will be curious to see more of the story.

so Jane gets some heat around here and sends in Glenn to pinch hit for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:05 PM

148. Quite a bit of organized smear there.

Lots of links and sources. Almost like a political press office did it.

Hmmmm.

Now what political entity would really like to smear Greenwald? Hmmmm.

Can we look for similar works on Michael Moore and Matt Damon next? Glad the RDLC is putting so many researchers to work in these lean times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jakes Progress (Reply #148)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:22 PM

151. Yay libel!

I uncovered this stuff in 2008. I am not a "political entity". You also seem to imply that I went after Greenwald because he's progressive. I don't believe he is progressive; I think he's a species of "libertarian", a Paulite non-interventionist dressed up as a Left Democrat. I argue this at length here.

http://socfools.blogspot.com/2009/03/understanding-and-handling-glenn.html

That Greenwald is being re-exposed on the web site of a progressive community is good, because this myth that he's progressive needs to be debunked. Too many people of left-liberal sympathies are allured by his anti-neocon and anti-Israel fulminations -- much the same phenomenon you see playing out with Ron Paul, whom Glenn admires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guanubian (Reply #151)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:27 PM

153. Please edit out your second word--it's against community standards, and your post

deserves to stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #153)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:33 PM

155. Done

Fair enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guanubian (Reply #151)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:49 PM

162. Wait, wait, wait--did you just post an article criticize Greenwald while arguing for the Iraq War on

humanitarian grounds? And you're questioning other people's credential's as progressive?

The fact that the premise of this article is that Greenwald is bad for commenting on Israel's war crimes (which seems to be the fixation of your website in general--warmongering and whitewashing Israel's crimes) only makes this all the more farcical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puregonzo1188 (Reply #162)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:46 PM

163. Cultish Followers

That's neither the premise of my article nor does my site "warmonger" or "whitewash" Israel's "war crimes". These are red herrings and your comment brings to mind something else shared by Ron Paul, Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald: cultish followers.

The premise of my article is Greenwald is often mistaken for some kind of progressive, but is actually a Paulite non-interventionist dressed up as a Left Democrat. I do imply that I am "a reasonable proponent of humanitarian military intervention", which remains true in relation to Saddam's Iraq -- I've never seen a cocksure "progressive" like you wring a hand over the Iraqis Saddam killed himself -- though if I had it to do over, I wouldn't put faith in the Bush administration to run a Kazakh DMV, let alone an American invasion of another country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guanubian (Reply #163)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:01 AM

171. Pot. Meet Kettle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guanubian (Reply #163)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:11 PM

191. Let me get this straight--someone who supports the Iraq War and opposes the Islamic Community Center

being built several blocks away from Ground Zero (yes, I actually took time to like at the blog you joined our site just to self-promote) is in the business of trolling the internet to expose Greenwald as not being a real progressive? And what is your basis for this? He's a "Paulian Anti-Interventionist" unlike progressive you who supported an illegal war of aggression that has caused a million Iraqi citizens to be killed?

I don't know what you know about this site, given that you just joined it to promote your blog and your fixation's on Glenn Greenwald, who dared to criticize Israel's bombing of Gaza, but it that's your definition of a progressive you aren't going to find any here.

As for Chomsky, I am very familiar with his writings and have even had the great honor of meeting him (very briefly) on two occasions. He is absolutely nothing like Ron Paul and it is comical to assert the two are part of some sort of similar political ideology. That being said I am not a cultish follower of either Chomsky or Greenwald--I can think of numerous positions I disagree with both of them on off the top of my head, but I still respect them deeply and admire their work (Chomsky more than Greenwald).

Only person who strikes me as a cultish follower is you--who joined this site just to spread your anti-Greenwald pro-war blog posts. I think if you wanted to raise the "you're only a progressive if you support the war in Iraq" bit I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised.

Enjoy your stay on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puregonzo1188 (Reply #191)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 10:04 PM

192. Zzzzzz

Thanks so much for taking the time, but while your eyes may have pored over what I've written here and on my blog, you've comprehended little. Whether that's by design or default I'm unable to say, though your "'deep' respect" for Chomsky and Greenwald suggest it's the latter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puregonzo1188 (Reply #191)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 10:28 PM

194. Spoken like a cultist

"... who supported an illegal war of aggression that has caused a million Iraqi citizens to be killed?"

Unreal. The toll of the Iraq war was by far and away bad enough for you to dispense with this conspirazoid pseudo-fact that even the Iraq Body Count people dismissed as absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puregonzo1188 (Reply #191)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 10:34 PM

195. Basic Reasoning

"'Chomsky' is absolutely nothing like Ron Paul and it is comical to assert the two are part of some sort of similar political ideology."

Good thing I didn't write that then. From what I did write, you can use the transitive relation to surmise that I believe Ron Paul, Greenwald and Chomsky all SHARE SOMETHING IN COMMON. Sharing something in common is different from BEING THE SAME, or even BROADLY SIMILAR. Shaquille O'neal, Noam Chomsky and Borat might all like ice cream; that doesn't make them "part of some sort of similar political ideology".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puregonzo1188 (Reply #191)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 12:55 AM

197. I'm going to keep pawing you around until I can overcome my insomnia

"'Chomsky' is absolutely nothing like Ron Paul..."

This is a non sequitur, but I should point out you don't understand the intellectual patrimony of your heroes. Chomsky, Paul and Greenwald share a common libertarian descent, though Chomsky is a kind of Left libertarian ("libertarian socialist"), Paul is clearly a Right "Libertarian" (in the modern American sense), and Greenwald incorporates elements of both. These are very different end points, but they share a common ancestry (related to anarchism), just like English and German are different "Germanic" languages descending from a common progenitor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guanubian (Reply #197)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 03:11 PM

198. Dude. You are only playing with yourself.

Nothings getting pawed but your ego. You come back to a thread after a week because you have been rolling around in bed thinking to yourself "What I should have said....". When you hope that everyone has left the thread, you pile on and reply three times to the same post to make you feel like you made a point or won something. Pathetic.

Let it go. You got bested and not amount of "Oh yeah, well..." is gonna fix it.

You are only continuing to describe yourself in terms and with language that assures us of where you are. You love the nits. What happens in the real world as a result of nit-pickers like you doesn't concern you. You love to call names and hate being called names. You love to label others and refuse to label yourself.

We got it already. Take a nap. Eat some lunch. You'll feel better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puregonzo1188 (Reply #191)

Sun May 6, 2012, 07:28 PM

199. Waay late to the party....

...and I love to break this to you, but Greenwald supported both of Bush's wars. And of course that includes, as you say, the "illegal war of aggression that has caused a million Iraqi citizens to be killed"

http://bit.ly/InX0Yw

And he wanted "exact vengeance" on those dastardly Muslims who perpetrated 9/11:

"I believed that Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the country, and I wanted an aggressive response from our government. I was ready to stand behind President Bush and I wanted him to exact vengeance on the perpetrators and find ways to decrease the likelihood of future attacks. During the following two weeks, my confidence in the Bush administration grew as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint. And I was fully supportive of both the president's ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the president's approval ratings remained in the high 60 percent range, or even above 70 percent, and I was among those who strongly approved of his performance."

So basically, schmucks like him enabled and set in motion all he now decries.

So what does that make Greenwald since you've set the bar so high?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guanubian (Reply #151)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:00 AM

168. So, you are a neocon, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #168)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 10:07 PM

193. So, you are a child molester, eh?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guanubian (Reply #193)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 11:39 PM

196. Just looking up Fightin with Grabes.

And I don't where you get, I "keep using that word." You are a very confused person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guanubian (Reply #151)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:03 AM

172. Touchy.

You need to read more carefully and without the hypersensitivity to criticism evident here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jakes Progress (Reply #148)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:25 PM

152. What is the RDLC? Googled it, found nothing. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #152)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:00 AM

170. The more accurate name of the party

which has become infested and monetarily controlled by reagan democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:31 PM

154. he must have struck a nerve if people are going to this much trouble to dig up dirt on him

and it doesn't change whether what he writes is true or false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #154)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:41 PM

156. Nothing strange here

Yes, as I wrote, the "nerve" is too many people of left-liberal sympathies are allured by Greenwald's anti-neocon and anti-Israel fulminations, much the same phenomenon you see playing out with Ron Paul, and I think they're led by both to a rather illiberal place. That, and Greenwald's obscene butchery of the English language, are my motivations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guanubian (Reply #156)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:55 PM

157. You insult the intelligence of DUers when you imply we will buy EVERYTHING someone says because we

agree with them on a few issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #157)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:57 PM

158. I find some of what Hitler says about the nature of propaganda useful, but

that doesn't mean I agree with anti-Semitism or establishing a thousand year reich of Germans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #158)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:17 PM

160. That's a generality that skirts the issue.

Anyone can be right about anything, but you don't repeatedly and enthusiastically seek out and promote Hitler's views, on propaganda or cooking or parking for that matter, because there are other good sources on those things and most people wish to avoid being associated with Hitler. Some progressives repeatedly and enthusiastically seek out and promote Greenwald's prolix and awful writings, and that shows that illiberal ideas have gained traction among them in the last ten years, namely non-interventionism and Lindberghian fear and loathing of Israel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guanubian (Reply #160)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:16 PM

178. I would cite Hitler on propaganda because he used it very successfully

I also use Machiavelli for the same reason in my college classes. I even use a memo Newt wrote about use of language for other Republicans.

It's always best to get as close to the original source or the best users of something for an explanation of how it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #178)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:28 PM

179. You're continuing to miss the point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #158)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:24 PM

161. Also

His views on propaganda are not what was truly offensive about Hitler, whereas Greenwald's views on the US, the West and Israel (and his extenuations of their enemies) are central to his noxiousness. I won't bother you if you wish to praise and cite Greenwald's opinions on dogs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:02 PM

159. Ron Paul, and Chomsky too

Not only are Greenwald and Ron Paul kindred spirits, but so are Greenwald and Noam Chomsky, for whom Greenwald has professed admiration. Greenwald's writing is consciously crafted after Chomsky's -- I mean the style, as well as some of the themes -- and Greenwald's defense of Hale was essentially his American attempt to recapitulate Chomsky's "free speech" defense of the French Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson. That comparison may serve further to confuse people by associating Greenwald with "progressivism", but besides stylistic and rhetorical tics and putrid intellectual hygine, Greenwald and Chomsky primarily share antipathy toward the US, the West and Israel rising from passionate inverse exceptionalism -- i.e., "our side" is always "as bad or worse" and it is our solemn civic duty to declaim this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:32 PM

165. Thanks for this, msanthrope. This is truly fascinating

One of my favorite (former, unfortunately) DU posters, SemiCharmedQuark -- a gorgeous Latina -- is still smiting over this Greenwald piece from a few years ago where he bemoans that Republicans aren't spending enough time hustling out illegal immigrants. Who knew that Greenwald was also a wanna be GOP strategist?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #165)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:19 AM

173. Ah yes--Greenwald in his pre-Salon days. His piece on illegal immigration

is an interesting one, is it not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #165)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:33 AM

174. Holy Smokes:

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.

A substantial part of the GOP base urgently wants Republicans, who now control the entire Federal Government, to take the lead in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. And yet the GOP, despite its unchallenged control, does virtually nothing, infuriating this sector of its party. The White House does worse than nothing; to the extent it acts on this issue at all, it is to introduce legislation designed to sanction and approve of illegal immigration through its “guest worker” program, a first cousin of all-out amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Those evil illegal immigrants don't deserve amnesty!

Greenwald defended himself:

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

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

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/a2av5p


Shorter Greenwald: In 2005, I was just a baby in politics, only having just put to rest my trust in Bush and withdrawing my support for the Iraq war. Damn "Obama cultists."




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #174)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 10:02 AM

175. Worthy of it's own thread, frankly....

Not just for the stance, but for the explanation.

I assume he's obeying all the rules and regulations regarding his residency in Brazil, and I can see how he would expect the same of those entering the USA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #174)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 03:22 PM

176. His "explanations" are often far more revealing than his usual writings

The old "nobody was reading my blog back then" excuse is particularly illuminating. And his propensity for such public insults I find immature, incredibly unprofessional and the mark of someone who is not convinced of his own arguments.

An old adage says that "character is who you are when no one is looking". For old GG, that may need to be changed to "character is who you are when no one is reading."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #174)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 05:11 PM

185. In other words, he was for bigotry before he was against it?

Greenwald "cultists" will eat it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:31 PM

180. I think people coming here to decapitate our intellectual heroes are not to be trusted

They betray a deep bias, and I have nothing but skepticism toward their remarks, which (especially in this case) are frankly vile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #180)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:44 PM

181. Funny how people who shouldn't be trusted keep getting

high-fived here. I guess there is a reason it was never labeled Liberal Underground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #180)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:47 PM

182. Glenn Greenwald = "intellectual hero"?!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #182)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 05:04 PM

183. yeah, and it's obvious those who don't perceive this

are not on our side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #183)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 08:38 PM

190. ..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #180)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:13 PM

186. I have never guillotined anyone in my life.

I guess one person's intellectual hero is another person's whinging libertarian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #180)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 07:42 AM

204. How anyone who believes this could call

Obama's supporters "cultists" is beyond all. What hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 05:07 PM

184. This guy's a real beaut, ain't he?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #184)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:15 PM

187. I think he is a Libertarian who made his money being a pseudo-liberal/progressive.

Lots of those going about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #187)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:23 PM

188. "Libertarian who made his money being a pseudo-liberal/progressive". This is why I will always.....

despise Bush/Cheney. They brought about an unholy coalition whereby "libertarianism" and "liberalism" got all tangled up together, and created this two headed monster.

It's like Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich had a love child, everyone knows this is one unattractive baby, but you're not allowed to say so, in polite society. As Thom Hartmann used to say, "Libertarians are just Republicans who want to get laid and smoke dope".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #188)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:26 PM

189. To add to your point...

More narrowly speaking, Bush/Cheney certainly galvanized, but did not bring about, the right-left non-interventionist consensus that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich share and Glenn Greenwald embodies. This iteration has been brewing since the Iron Curtain fell. It's also something that has occurred before in bellicose times. America First was a right-left coalition. Bush/Cheney made it more mainstream today by being so provocative and inept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 10:38 PM

200. I'm bookmarking this.

Very interesting, considering his latest reporting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 10:41 PM

201. I'm not surprised you posted this. Kill the fuckin messenga!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 04:10 AM

205. I'd not been paying close attention last year and missed this

Greenwald's behavior is really bizarre. He's an American, married to a man and lives in Brazil because of DOMA. He never worked anywhere very long, and I question his honesty about anything he has done owing to his leaving one job to represent a White Supremacist. He secured a connection to The Guardian a relatively short time ago - last year. I think he hates Obama for a number of reasons. And I think he hates progressives possibly more.

This letter to The Nation points out some more interesting factoids before the Snowden affair.


"Email Address:
mbrahmana@gmail.com

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.

War sucks, and I at least agree with Greenwald that we should avoid war if necessary, and quickly bring to an end any outstanding wars, as long as it is done responsibly so we do not have to go back in after we leave. But Greenwald's obsession with undermining Obama in this effort should make any progressive pause, especially given his right-wing background, his inability to write a single positive story about the Obama administration and his inability to write about anything other than civil liberties that progressives care about.

Read more: Greenwald is a conservative/libertarian mole | The Nation http://www.thenation.com/letter/greenwald-"

I completely agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:20 AM

206. bump for relevance nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #206)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:40 AM

207. Thank you---I think you also might like this thread--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023040270#post6

I explain more in more detail how his incompetence vitiated his client's privilege--probably leading to why Matt Hale settled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread