Glenn Greenwald: Usaama Rahim was a 'victim,' not a criminal

[geek tragedy]

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/03/media-trash-character-police-shooting-victim-reporting-anonymous-smears/

Even the police’s version of events, if believed, raises all sorts of questions. They say Rahim was under “24-hour surveillance” by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, and were monitoring him for at least two years. When they approached him, they had no arrest or search warrant, but instead simply wanted to question him. When they did so, he pulled out his knife, and when he refused to put it away and walked toward them, they shot and killed him.

There are numerous questions raised by all of this. If Rahim was so dangerous, why didn’t the constant surveillance result in any charges? If — as the media spent all day claiming — he was on the verge of executing a horrific terror attack, why didn’t law enforcement agents have an arrest warrant or even search warrant? What was their intention in approaching him this way? Were they wearing uniforms, and — supposedly believing he was an ISIS operative eager to kill police — did they do anything to make him feel threatened?

...

Whatever the truth about the shooting itself turns out to be, think about what happened here. A black Muslim man charged with no crime was standing at a bus stop when approached by the FBI and BPD, who had no warrant to arrest him. Within minutes, he was dead. And literally within hours, he was universally vilified in the American media — with zero evidence — as an ISIS-inspired terrorist in the midst of a plot potentially involving multiple unnamed “others,” all based on nothing more than police accusations.

You see, the only bad guys in a confrontation with a terrorist are (1) those who do something to stop the terrorist and (2) those who describe the terrorist as a terrorist.

And of course, stopping terrorists is totally racist.

You can read all about this poor, sweet innocent victim of state-sanctioned murder here:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/03/david.wright.complaint.pdf

[Luminous Animal]

1. No. He not say he was not a criminal. Somehow you missed this

The point here is not that the police claims are untrue. The point is that nobody knows if they are true or not. Yet they were aggressively and uncritically amplified by an always pro-police media, resulting in the vilification of the dead victim as an ISIS-linked terror operative within hours after his death. Precisely as intended, that, in turn, precluded any rational discussion of whether the killing was justified.

[yeoman6987]

2. One thing different in this case is the aftermath

They invited church leaders and community leaders and politicians to discuss and watch the video. I don't know what the outcome was but at least there is no more hiding the video or not having discussions.

[Luminous Animal]

4. Yes, the openness is a good thing. Still no excuse for shoddy reporting.

Which, of course, was the point of the article.

[geek tragedy]

6. His point was to sympathize with yet another

dead terrorist by painting the terrorist as the 'victim' of government brutality and suggesting in thinly veiled language that those who interfered with the terrorist were guilty of wrongful conduct.

#isislivesmatter

Also, what was shoddy/inaccurate?

[Luminous Animal]

9. First, I respectfully ask you to cease putting words in my mouth. I said "shoddy".

His point is in his own article:

Literally within hours of the killing, both the Boston and national media had uncritically published multiple, wholly uncorroborated accusations about Rahim based solely on the claims of the law enforcement agencies that had just killed him. Some law enforcement officials were even granted anonymity by these journalists in order to smear their victim. Rahim was almost instantly convicted by the media of being a dangerous terrorist preparing to carry out an ISIS-inspired attack.

The smearing party was started by a local TV reporter, Cheryl Fiandaca, who bills herself as an “investigative reporter” for Channel 7 News. Here’s how she “investigates” and “reports”:

Cheryl
?@CherylFiandaca
Sources: Usaama Rahim was allegedly radicalized by #ISIS social media & may have been planning to attack police. #7News

Prior to joining Channel 7 News last year, guess what Fiandaca’s job was? She was the official spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department, and is also the ex-wife of former Boston Police Commissioner Bill Bratton. Now, in the immediate aftermath of the fatal shooting by her former employers, she’s giving anonymity to “sources” to smear Rahim as “radicalized by #ISIS social media” — whatever that means — and as someone who “may have been planning to attack police.”

Greenwald has been criticizing fake investigative reporters for years. This "investigative" reporter did zero investigation but rather spouted whatever the authorities told her and gave them anonymous cover for no good reason. That, right there is shoddy reporting and particularly shoddy for anyone who claims that they are an investigative reporter.

[geek tragedy]

10. Greenwald stated multiple times that

the media lied about the dead terrorist.

He used the word 'smear.'

What was defamatory in the reporting?

Or is Greenwald too stupid to know what a 'smear' means in American English?

[Luminous Animal]

12. Did I address his use of that word? No I did not. And, neither did Greenwald state that

the victim was a not a criminal. I have longed ceased taking you seriously because of your disregard for accuracy.

[geek tragedy]

13. Greenwald claimed the media made false accusations

against this guy. That means he's disputing the factual contents of the reporting.

What is actually false about the reporting?

If you can't find anything, then Greenwald has been busted in naked apologia for a terrorist.

[Luminous Animal]

15. Greenwald claimed that the verdict was in before any investigation was conducted.

What was false and shoddy about the reporting is that an "investigative" reporter simply did stenography without asking questions.

We still do not know of any of their 'ooh scary terrorist' justifications are true. Nope. Get the 'smear' in first and the facts later which is precisely Greenwald's point. (And precisely what the Bush regime did with Iraq… yes Saddam was a brutal dictator… he was also a victim of a smear campaign that the authoritarian-loving reporters dutifully spouted from the war-mongers perspective to lead the country into a disastrous war with millions of victims). And why I rarely post on the original reporting of these kind of crimes. Just too much knee jerk reactions.

Was the victim an ISIS inspired terrorist? We don't know. Will we ever find out the names of the other alleged members of his cell? If not, why not? Supposedly, they've been tracking the guy for two years. Or perhaps, this guy was an FBI insider who refused to co-operate any more. The FBI has a documented track record of manipulating Muslims into being informants. They also have a record of enlisting mentally ill people into planning terrorist acts and providing them (on paper) with the tools to do so.

These are scenarios that an "investigative" reporter would consider before granting the authorities the first word. Greenwald's complaint is that she granted the authorities to smear him first with no investigation to find out whether or not that smear was justified.

[geek tragedy]

17. Again, if there's a chance it's true then it's NOT a 'smear'

Smears are, by definition, factually false.

Greenwald is disputing the factual accuracy of the reporting. That is exactly what he is doing according to his own deliberate choice of words.

When you or Greenwald characterize the reporting as 'smears' you are declaring that reporting to be false, misleading and defamatory. It's not ambiguous--that is the explicit meaning of the word 'smear.'

[Luminous Animal]

24. Smears are also, politically, aspersions before the facts. To wit: Hillary and Benghazi.

I will state again, we have no evidence whatsoever that this person was a member of an ISIS cell because no evidence has been presented.

Hillary was smeared first until the facts came in. That is Greenwald's point. Lead with the smear before the facts. No investigation, just blind acceptance of statements from those who claim to be authorities.

[geek tragedy]

26. The reporters were accurately conveying what law enforcement was saying.

That is reporting, not smearing.

I guess reporters should just not ask questions.

[Luminous Animal]

31. Anonymous reports from law enforcement agencies who are known to lie all the fucking time.

So-called investigative reporters do not merely ask questions from the authorities and then, as Stephen Corbert brilliantly pointed out, in front of GWB and the rest of the lapdog media, act as stenographers for authorities.

They, you know, actually investigate. We have a 24 hour news cycle where "investigative" reporters will scream BENGHAZI and never investigate a damn thing.

That is precisely the point of Greenwald's article.

Lazy stenographers who catapult propaganda with no regard to discerning if the propaganda is factual. (FYI… propaganda CAN be factual.)

[geek tragedy]

35. So reporters should not report what law enforcement says?

They should be all like "some guy is dead. We asked the cops why they shot him, but we're not going to tell you what they told us."

Greenwald linked to a tweet from one of his colleagues who claimed the police were providing s cover story to cover up the fact that they shot this guy in the back.

Here is a reaction about a foiled terrorist plot you will NEVER see from Glenn Greenwald:

good thing the government stopped that from happening

His angle is always to suggest that it's a government hoax.

[markpkessinger]

25. So I gather you think it's just dandy for news outlets to make uncorroborated assertions . . .

. .. about people suspected of crimes?

[geek tragedy]

27. I think the media ought to ask law enforcement to comment

about police shootings and high profile criminal investigations, and to tell the public what law enforcement is saying.

They should also talk to the defendant's/perpetrator's and ask them to comment as well.

Was the media supposed to not ask questions?

[markpkessinger]

28. Yeah, well, dead men tel.l no tales, right? n/t

[markpkessinger]

29. And how often is the media even permitted to talk to a potential suspect? n/t

[geek tragedy]

36. They're always allowed to talk to the lawyer for the accused. nt

[geek tragedy]

5. Greenwald said he was a 'victim.'

That is a word used for people who are wrongfully treated of an illegal act.

Greenwald has a long history of such sympathies for Islamist terrorists and radicals. He practically nominated Al awlaki for the Nobel peace prize.

#alqaedalivesmatter

[Luminous Animal]

7. You are attempting to limit its meaning for no good teason

From the Oxford dictionaries

A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.

Please note the words "or other event or action"

victims are not always innocents. Personally I feel that those executed are victims even if they are guilty.

[geek tragedy]

8. So you would say without hesitation

that George Zimmermann was the victim of violence at the hands of Trayvon Martin?

I wouldn't.

How was Rahim 'smeared' by the way?

The same way that Greenwald claimed Ron Paul was 'smeared' as a racist by left wing writers?

http://www.salon.com/2007/11/12/paul_3/

[Luminous Animal]

45. I would say that I was the victim of my own clumsiness when I tripped over my cat

at 2:30 AM and scraped up my knees rather badly. My cat was also a victim of that encounter. You are conflating result with intent. Personally, I feel that Trayvon was defending himself against a stalker. But that is my gut feeling with no evidence contrary-wise.

[geek tragedy]

48. I agree on Trayvon. The use of 'victim' is a deliberate and an inflammatory

one in cases such as this. It does carry with it an implied sense of sympathy.

[Octafish]

3. Greenwald makes a good point, with the FBI's record.

Before 9-11, they respected suspected terrorists' civil rights. Ask Zaccarias Moussaoui and Coleen Rowley and 3,000 people, many of whom should still be alive.

After 9-11, they classified Americans as terrorists -- especially the ones who asked WTF in regard to the Police State with Supercomputers.

It seems that's the only way they can catch anybody is to monitor everybody and figure out who to screw, like most of those arrested were entrapped in their terror plans they never would have imagined without federal assistance.

In Boston, the FBI even killed a "witness" who was handcuffed during an interrogation, shooting him seven times in his own home, repeatedly lying about the circumstances afterward.

Other than that, there's the history of the institution.

[bullwinkle428]

14. Octafish, thanks for bringing up the Todashev shooting. Rachel has featured

MANY, MANY segments on this as part of her show. You can tell she clearly thinks the "official story" stinks to high heaven on this one.

[Rex]

11. Why didn't the ATF arrest David Koresh while he was at the grocery store?

Some things will always remain a mystery.

[geek tragedy]

21. That's the thing about criminal law, you can't arrest someone until they've committed a crime.

Oftentimes, that's too late to prevent a crime.

[cali]

33. I thought they already had the warrant

[geek tragedy]

50. Nope, not according to the reports I've seen.nt

[Recursion]

55. I think they had a bench warrant for failure to appear

But I may be conflating Koresh with Weaver.

[geek tragedy]

56. And I may be conflating Rahim with Koresh. nt

[Major Hogwash]

65. Umm, they did try.

But, as soon as Koresh was tipped off by local citizens in Waco that the FBI and the ATF were in town asking questions about him and were looking for him, was when Koresh barricaded himself at his compound.

[Vattel]

16. The headline is a lie.

He didn't say that Rahim was not a criminal.

[geek tragedy]

18. He said the reports that portrayed Rahim as a criminal were false.

And he made a big point about there being no warrant for Rahim's arrest.

[Vattel]

19. Your pants are way on fire.

"The point here is not that the police claims are untrue. The point is that nobody knows if they are true or not."

[geek tragedy]

20. A dishonest throwaway at the end of a column where he described

the claims about Rahim as 'smears.'
FOUR TIMES.

Smears are by definition false, misleading and defamatory.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/smear

Damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander:
someone was trying to smear her by faking letters

[Vattel]

22. Now you are a pretzel with your pants on fire.

[geek tragedy]

23. So you are saying that describing a claim as a 'smear' in no way implies or suggests

that the claim is false, misleading and defamatory?

[Vattel]

32. Come on, it is painfully obvious that Greenwald didn't deny that this person committed a crime.

Anyone who can read can see that. Trying to split hairs and say that an unsubstantiated accusation aimed at damaging someone's reputation can't be a smear unless it is false is quite clearly a sad attempt to avoid admitting you are wrong.

Merriam Webster's definition of a smear: a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization —often used attributively <a smear campaign> <a smear job>

Greenwald's complaint is that the press made unsubstantiated accusations. He made it clear that he was not claiming that the person in question committed a crime.

[geek tragedy]

39. There was footage of him charging at cops with a knife.

Seems to corroborate what they were saying, no?

[Vattel]

40. Changing the subject now? nice

[geek tragedy]

43. Well, no. That was corroboration of their version of events.

Moreover, who else is qualified to say why police stopped him?

Not sure what folks expect the press to do, not relay any information from law enforcement about any crime?

[Luminous Animal]

49. There was zero footage when originally reported. Zero. Do investigative reporters state as fact

on zero evidence? That is his point. That is the opposite of investigation.

[geek tragedy]

51. The only information available was what the LEO's said and what the guy's

brother said.

Most outlets reported both versions. As it turns out, the LEO's version was true and the brother's was false.

[Luminous Animal]

52. As Greenwald said, and as I quoted, the LEO version may be true. But to call oneself an

investigated reporter, BEFORE, finding out the truth is bullshit.

FYI, do you have a link to the footage?

[geek tragedy]

53. Investigative journalism isn't the same thing as live coverage of breaking news.

Silly to apply standards of one to the other.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/06/03/law-enforcement-officials-screen-surveillance-video-rahim-shooting-for-clergy-activists/UqWT30aSepJxl6vU9LmzFO/story.html

The surveillance video of the fatal shooting of Usaama Rahim by members of an anti-terror task force shows that he was not shot in the back and was not on his cellphone, contrary to an account posted on Facebook by his brother, a community leader said Wednesday after reviewing it with law enforcement officials.

“What the video does reveal to us, very clearly, is that the individual was not on the cellphone. The individual was not shot in the back. And the information reported by others that that was the case was inaccurate,’’ said Darnell Williams, president of the Urban League.

...

We're very comfortable with what we saw,” said Williams. He also said the video showed officers backing up before the shooting.

[Luminous Animal]

54. She claims that she is and investigative reporter. Investigative reporters investigate before

reporting. That is Greenwald's criticism. This is not rocket science.

[geek tragedy]

57. Well, he found a local reporter who overstated her credentials.

Truly a national scandal.

[Vattel]

64. The fact remains, Greenwald did not claim that no crime was committed. So either you are lying

in saying that he did make this claim or you lack basic reading comprehension skills.

[geek tragedy]

67. He said the statements about criminal conduct

were 'smears' and that the dead terrorist was a 'victim' of police violence while invoking Michael Brown and repeatedly citing the dead terrorist's skin color in accusing both the police and media of racism.
Same old nonsense from this terrorist sympathizer/apologist:

Before the killing can be processed by the public, the victim’s character is smeared by media-laundered police claims, often anonymously. Here, the tactic had the sweetened appeal that it could be used to fearmonger over an ISIS attack in the U.S., as Rahim was not only black but also Muslim. As my colleague Murtaza Hussain put it: “14 years after 9/11 law enforcement can kill someone in the street, suggest they were part of a ‘terror network’, and media will just move on.” He added: “Apparently all you have to do to defuse outrage over killing someone is apply the gangster or terrorist label to the still-warm dead body

Well, no, the police quelled outrage by showing video of the shooting to community leaders. But that doesn't stop Greenwald from throwing the dead terrorist a race-baiting pity party wherein the dead terrorist (dead solely to his own actions btw) is declared a 'victim' of police violence and racism, and a media/police conspiracy to smear a victim of that police violence/racism.

It upsets Greenwald every time someone says mean things about terrorists or interferes with their plans.

[Vattel]

71. Your dishonesty is transparent.

[Scootaloo]

30. What act of terrorism did Rahim commit, Geek?

[geek tragedy]

38. Tried to kill cops with a knife, conspiring to commit murder.

But, he was never convicted, do legally he's just a dead psycho who got what he deserved.

[Scootaloo]

41. These are not terrorist acts

[geek tragedy]

42. Conspiring to behead bloggers and then police in the name of international

jihad isn't terrorism?

Does it only count as terrorism if they succeed?

[Scootaloo]

58. Yeah, actually, you have to commit the crime to be a criminal of that sort

You know, you're not a murderer until you murder someone. Now you can conspire to murder, of course, but that still doesn't make you a murderer until you actually do it.

[geek tragedy]

59. Conspiracy is a crime. nt

[Scootaloo]

60. It is. That makes him a criminal.

Terrorism is a specific crime that he did not commit.

[geek tragedy]

61. There are a number of terrorism-related crimes

Conspiracy certainly can be one of them.

What was contemplated/planned/attempted here certainly was terrorism.

[Scootaloo]

62. Only if you use the media definition of terrorism

[geek tragedy]

63. Which is as good as any.

The government claimed Cuba was a sponsor of terrorism for decades, for example.

[DanTex]

66. You don't think conspiracy to commit terrorist acts makes a person a

terrorist? So, for example, if they had caught the 9-11 hijackers on 9-10, it would have been incorrect to call them terrorists?

[Bonobo]

34. I thought a colon after a name was supposed to mean that the person said the thing after the colons.

What if I had said:

Hillary Clinton: I don't care about dead Iraqi children


Would that be okay in your book?

[geek tragedy]

44. Greenwald said he was a 'victim'--that was his choice of words.

He's also all verklempt that police stopped a violent terrorist on the street without getting a warrant, which indicates he probably forgot everything he learned about criminal procedure when studying for the bar.

[Bonobo]

47. Hmmm... nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

37. It's a good article. Greenwald does a nice job of pointing out

...just how lemming-like our media is.

[geek tragedy]

46. If you were a reporter assigned to the case, what information would you

have included in your broadcast/article?

[whatchamacallit]

69. This authoritarian turd of an OP

doesn't deserve the 2 pathetic recs it got. *flush*

[Capt. Obvious]

70. Check in if you knew who one of the two Rec'ers was before checking

It's like from another dimension.

[kfreed]

72. How come Glenn Greenwald is promoting white supremacists?

See comments here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026184340

[kfreed]

73. So WHY then is Greenwald promoting white supremacists?

See my comments here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026184340

I repeat: Glenn Greenwald is, and has for years, been in the habit of promoting white supremacists to the left, so what makes anyone think he's telling he truth?