Authoritarian

[last1standing]

The definition for Authoritarian:

adjective
1.
favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2.
of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3.
exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.
noun
4.
a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authoritarian

I'm not posting this definition in order to accuse any individual of being an Authoritarian, merely to discuss whether the belief that Snowden and Greenwald should be prosecuted for whistle blowing falls under that category.

It's my belief that if a person argues that one or both of these people should be prosecuted because it's the law, and for no other reason, then that is an authoritarian viewpoint. Cries of Rule of Law without context or regard for traditional rights and liberties is generally considered authoritarian as described by the second definition.

If the reason for supporting punishment for Greenwald and Snowden is because they have undermined the authority of the president or some other governmental authority, this is also generally considered authoritarian as can be seen in the first definition. Remember, there is no Constitutional prohibition against undermining a government official through peaceful means.

So, if you do hold that Greenwald and/or Snowden should be punished based on either of the above reasons, this is an authoritarian viewpoint as you support an authority at the expense of individual freedoms.

I'm not trying to suggest that every person who doesn't support whistle blowers or Greenwald and Snowden specifically is authoritarian, but based on what has been posted on this site, some definitely are.

[leftstreet]

1. If Bush was in office, DU would be sending Snowden flowers

just sayin

[last1standing]

2. If bush were in office there supporting the same actions would be a bannable offense.

When I was a moderator during an earlier incarnation of DU we would ban posters for less, especially when they had low post counts but came out swinging as so many are doing these days.

"Not one of us" was a common quote.

[grasswire]

3. If Bush was in office, his defenders....

.....would sound exactly like the administration defenders do today.

I know. I monitored freerepublic during the Bush years. Same kind of personality cult happened then. Same kind of rhetoric, same propaganda techniques.

[last1standing]

4. They might sound the same...

but they wouldn't be saying for long on this board. that's the sad truth. We now celebrate what we once universally abhorred.

[Whisp]

5. gross vomitus.

[RobertEarl]

6. Nice depiction, Whisp

And accurate, too.

The apologists for Bush spy policy are vomitus of the grossest type.

[redgreenandblue]

7. knr