I'm trying to understand the pov that Greenwald is a terrorist

[cali]

not just coming from someone who professes that they're a liberal, but coming from anyone. I can't. I don't understand what motivates such an opinion. Even if you loath him and think he's the worst journalist ever, how on earth can you justify labeling him a terrorist? It's a shocking claim and its implications are that the person voicing it would support anything the state did. Yes, anything no matter how horrendous and despicable; any abuse, any stripping of human rights.

It frankly disgusts and frightens me to see people who are calling themselves liberals voicing such vile and disturbing shit.

They aren't liberals or humanists. I

It's fucking shameful.

[hobbit709]

1. They're spouting the talking points given by the spinmeisters.

Who are desperately trying to find something that will stick since they can't refute the facts.

[cantbeserious]

2. We Have Become Darth Vader America With Authoritarian Groupies

eom

[Bonobo]

3. I can only think of one explanation.

[darkangel218]

8. lol!!

[joshcryer]

4. I only saw one poster doubling down on that.

And another maybe waffling on it. I can name the former, the latter's nick escapes me now. But I don't think it merits an entire OP...

Is there really a lot of "people who are calling themselves liberals voicing such vile and disturbing shit"? Where are they? Care to point them out?

[morningfog]

9. Here are those who rec'd the journalist as terrorist post:

Tarheel_Dem sheshe2 Cha greatauntoftriplets michigandem58 Jamaal510 SidDithers kelliekat44 stevenleser railsback bama_blue_dot mwrguy CakeGrrl sagat Liberal_Stalwart71 4bucksagallon UTUSN BumRushDaShow uponit7771 Lil Missy sigmasix ucrdem

Why would you rec that thread unless you support that view point.

[East Coast Pirate]

19. Feeding frenzy.

[joshcryer]

24. Fair enough.

I don't know if a rec would qualify for "voicing such file shit" though since it's more of a silent thing and could've been done in solidarity. Certainly the vast majority of critics or detractors aren't joining in that rec list.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. On that list is the DUer who said 'Latin America is but a cyst on the ass of the world'. So that's

the level of intellect and humanity you are dealing with. Folks who hate entire regions full of people, whole cultures just for rhetorical sport. The crowd that would say and stand by that level of bigotry would know no shame at all.
And that same lot of folks has attacked Greenwald for being gay for several years prior to Snowden issues. They ALWAYS typed up vicious crap about him and often extended that to all gay people on DU.
'A cyst on the ass of the world'. This is the summation of their philosophy of hate and destruction of hubris and xenophobia.

[LuvNewcastle]

47. I remember that, and I couldn't believe what I was reading.

I don't understand why that one is still here.

[City Lights]

33. The usual suspects. nt

[frylock]

54. a veritable who's who of my ignore list..

there are a couple I have refrained from ignoring for the sheer comedic value of their posts.

[treestar]

53. There are many reasons to rec posts

There was a discussion of the definition under 18 USC § 2331. Legal definitions of words often go against the grain. They were discussing legal basis for stopping someone in an airport, I believe. OP just goes with the idea of making the legal definition sound like the regular one.

A court could say that the acts are "terrorism" under 18 USC and we could find that to sound extreme, but it could meet the definition in the code.

Once again OP does not understand the legal system and seeks to flare up emotions about it. Yet one cannot consider a legal question with emotions. It had to be done with the intellect.

OP just wants to trash everything and be miserable, rather than understand there is nothing going on here but legal interpretation. If a law labels something "terrorism," it is not the same thing as OBL's acts. It's just a label for legal purposes.

[cali]

17. 22 recs for that one op.

[joshcryer]

25. I don't think I would qualify a rec the way you characterized it.

But fair enough.

[cali]

29. I didn't characterize those recs at all.

and I'm not saying that everyone who recced it agreed with every word, but why rec something if you're not in at least general agreement with some of what's being expressed- and there's really only one thing expressed in that op; that Greenwald is a terrorist. It's an extreme claim.

[treestar]

52. It's straw man flame bait all right

There are no such lot of people.

[redgreenandblue]

5. The OP you are referring to is by one person who reminds me a lot of graham4anything.

Has been posting nothing but flame-bait for days now....

But yeah, that thread did get a lot of recs.

[Bonobo]

7. Was G4A from Michigan? nt

[redgreenandblue]

15. I have no idea, but the style fits.

Except g4a produced more word-salad.

[Bonobo]

6. At least it provided a beautifully succinct list of fascists.

I think I'll keep it for handy reference.

[Jerry442]

10. Humpty Dumpty logic

"When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less. The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things. The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master that's all."

[Civilization2]

11. This should illustrate that labeling anyone a "terrorist" to strip their rights, is dangerous!

Since Bush Jr's "9/11 War-OF-Terror" was created by the sick minds that hatched it,. the level of "guilt" required to label someone a "terrorist" has been steadily degenerating. The state should never be given the power of trial-conviction-and-execution in secret! Due process is important for a reason, and we are seeing why now. Labeling journalists and leakers as terrorists is part of the logical progression that only get worse. Thought crime to drone-strike,. aint' that far.

[PowerToThePeople]

12. It will drive you mad. n/t

[1awake]

13. I'll break it down for you.. step out of who you are for a sec and pretend your

a Authoritarian Fascist. Got the right mind set? Okay, NOW from that point of view look at the situation again. That is the only way I can understand how people can think that way.

[Little Star]

14. I don't get it either. I also agree it's shameful for those who call themselves liberals....

Boggles the mind.

[TransitJohn]

16. It's the same mentality that thinks that torture is okay.

It's really crazy.

[Javaman]

18. because character assassination is the easiest form of attack. nt

[stonecutter357]

20. Not a terrorist.

A thief

[cali]

21. How is Greenwald a thief? He received classified information

but so have lots of reporters.

[ljm2002]

44. A lot of people seem unclear on the concept...

...of journalistic freedom, at least as it is preached (and used to be practiced) in this country.

It boggles the mind.

[frylock]

55. did greenwald steal your ability to think logically?

[OnyxCollie]

22. I tried to get an explanation for what terrorist activities

Julian Assange had committed when Joe Biden labeled him a "high tech terrorist."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2536907

After going round and round, the answer appears to be, "Assange is a terrorist because Joe Biden said so."

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

23. One word...fear

No matter what label or position a person may have, fear conquers all rational thought.
I feel that since 9/11 some otherwise sane people "enjoy" living in the state of fear. Kinda like the "excited misery" state of being in regards to addiction. Pegging someone a terrorist broadcasts that fear to others. They could fear that his writings may cause the truth, that they have been in denial about, to be revealed. The status quo may be rocked, hence fear enters. Greenwald being the cause of that fear is then labeled as a terrorist.
Hey just an opinion.
I tend to feel a little pity for them especially if they hang out here, a place where fear should be abated.

[TheJames]

40. Do you remember,

Fear is the mind-killer, from Dune?

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

49. How do you know that I have read,

And re-read all the Dune novels?

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."

I used this quote for the weeks leading up to my quad heart by-pass operation.

I still repeat it every day. Which is, in retrospect, why I posted the comment. Thank you for the insight!

[malthaussen]

27. The chain-of-argument goes something like this:

1) Revealing information as to the methods employed by intelligence agencies to gather anti-terrorist information serves as a warning and notification to the enemy to change and secure his methods of communication.

2) Thus revealing such information aids and abets the enemy.

3) Anyone who knowingly and willingly aids and abets the enemy is, ipso facto, an enemy himself.

4) Ergo, the journalist (Mr Greenwald) who published such information is a terrorist. And his cat as well.

This argument has "validity" if one is of the mind that any means are justifiable so long as one American life is saved, one "terrorist" plot exposed. Those who are of the opinion that the end justifies the means in national security issues will not allow that any inconvenience to law-abiding citizens or violations of law in pursuit of national security are too large a price to pay for the safety and integrity of the nation and its citizens. In extreme cases, people of this disposition will even consider it disloyal that a citizen would not cheerfully and willingly submit to any directives from central authority in pursuit of the goal of National Security. Read their rhetoric, none of this is news, or even particularly new. This is a conflict as old as nations.

Ultimately the question boils down to this: is National Security above the law? Or is there some ideal, some ethical purpose, greater than the security of the nation and its citizens?

-- Mal

[cali]

30. pretty good explanation, Mal.

[Hydra]

31. You've boiled this entire fight down perfectly.

The Gov't is asserting that their highest priority is "National Security." In a perfect world, that would mean that keeping you, me and our society safe from anything that could threaten it. I put it in quotes because it's not really clear what they are *actually* protecting.

According to their position, anything and everything must be available for them to use, from infinite funding to indefinite detention to immunity from prosecution in the pursuit this goal.

Meanwhile, we have the Constitution. The essence of the social contract we have with our Gov't. We give them certain authorities and they in turn leave us alone about various issues. It's supposed to be their job to protect this social contract, but instead they are asserting that we don't need a social contract- we can trust them to take care of everything for us.

It's all very disturbing. It feels very "parental." "We'll tell you what you need to know, and you need to do what we say, or we will have to punish you." It's not a meeting of equals.

[mindwalker_i]

46. That is very well written

It doesn't call anybody names, just lays out the thinking of the people who support the government on this issue. I wish I could recommend this post!

To call Greenwald, Snowden, or Manning terrorists is to push the term way past its usefulness. They didn't bomb anything, didn't shoot anyone, and didn't damage any property. Calling them theives completely misses that they were all informing us of the things committed by our government: torture, spying on most or all Americans. It seems to be only an attempt to divert attention from these things and away from the government, which I believe is a huge mistake. We need to know it, condemn it, and try to change it.

[Recursion]

28. Do you mean the UK/Miranda thing?

If you mean that, the problem is that under the law "terrorism" includes having a bus schedule.

[alc]

32. I can give you the government's POV

I disagree with it, but if you want to understand such a POV here is one:

* NSA rules allow them to follow a chain of 3 contacts when the first has contact with a foreign "terrorist"

* the government wants to label as many things as possible terrorism. For example they've tried to define "unauthorized access to a computer system" as terrorism. And they wouldn't state that following a google link to a site that didn't authorize you was ok. While they didn't get the law passed it could be a "rule" they follow internally, Greenwald did this.

* The more things they can label "terrorism" the wider a net they can cast (by their rules - see the first point). So it's good to label even routine things as terrorism.

* and finally: we are all safer because they are looking out for us with a net that covers almost the entire US (including DC which is necessary in case another part of the government decides it's a good idea to shrink their net).

++ also, cracking down on a journalist makes it less likely that anyone will raise a stink in the future which protects them from oversight and need to use their DC net.

If I were in the NSA (and believed in my work), I would absolutely think that Greenwald's actions aid terrorists in that it may make it more difficult to do my job, even if it's not direct aid.

If I wanted to aid terrorists without implicating myself, one way would be to expose NSA methods publicly (rather than to individual terrorists) with "jorunalism" and if possible to set off a move to restriction those methods. I think it's ridiculous to think this was Greenwald's motive. And I honestly don't care if it is or not - either way there's still a problem with the NSA that should be discussed and fixed independent from Snowden/Greenwald.

[RC]

41. Snowden and Greenwald are the distraction from the wide net. That is why we hear so much about them.

They really do not want anyone to know how big that net is, even for the ones they trap under it.
That said, fighting terrorism is not and never was the objective for the NSA. It is power, control of the United States, and by extension, any country they perceive as a threat to that power and control. Such as refusing to knuckle under to our wishes. Why does anyone think we give so much military aid to so many countries? So the governments we want there can be in control. Cross us and we start supplying their rebels. The United States is far worse than most people realize.

[Whisp]

34. Someone(s) here on DU called him a terrorist?

I missed that but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a couple extreme opinions of that sort on this, there usually are on most topics. No need to go passively accusing everyone that thinks GG is less than honourable in all this of calling him a terrorist. Nice try tho.

[cali]

35. lol. go alert. or maybe you alread did. someone did. laughable.

and you know that whatever else I am, I'm not passive. I'm not and never have been a big fan of Greenwald's.

lame try, but it's you so I don't expect anything particularly reasonable.

[Whisp]

36. no, I didn't alert. you are wrong.

get used to it.

[cali]

43. uh, evidently you don't know what "maybe" means. unsurprising.

I said maybe you did. let me explain this just for you. Maybe means possibly. As for someone alerting, I'm right and YOU are wrong as you almost invariably are about..... everything.

Someone sent me the jury results.

1 person voted to hide.

[Whisp]

45. well, maybe you kicked your dog this morning.

you suspected me of alerting.

and I didn't.

you are wrong.

get used to it,
there will be more.

[cali]

50. maybe I did. or maybe I fed her baloney just as you try to feed it

to DU.

I said it was a possibility, not that I suspected you. Your grasp on the English language is about as accomplished as your grasp of issues- slim to none. and that's not a suspicion. It's a certainty.



at least try to keep up.

[Whisp]

51. possibility but not suspected...

maybe your dog ate your dictionary and I suspect there is a possibility that is why you may have kicked him.

pos·si·bil·i·ty
/ˌpäsəˈbilətē/
Noun

A thing that may happen or be the case.
The state or fact of being likely or possible; likelihood.

Synonyms
chance - potentiality - eventuality - likelihood

--

suspected past participle, past tense of sus·pect (Verb)
Verb
Have an idea or impression of the existence, presence, or truth of (something) without certain proof.
Believe or feel that (someone) is guilty of an illegal, dishonest, or unpleasant act, without certain proof.

[Duval]

37. He was/is NOT a terrorist, IMHO. n/t

[Smarmie Doofus]

38. Nothing to understand. Don't waste your time. n/t

( And they're not liberals BTW. I don't care what they call themselves.)

[Liberal_Dog]

39. 100% Agreed

That was one seriously disturbing OP.

[geek tragedy]

42. egomaniacal asshole? yes. Terrorist? crazy talk nt

[Silent3]

48. A mystery that you created for yourself to be shocked and amazed by?

Even those badly abusing the law and treating Greenwald as if he (or his associates) are potential terrorists aren't calling him a terrorist that I've heard. Maybe there really is someone out there calling him a terrorist, but then again there are also people who think they're Batman.

You probably don't get either mystified or outraged by all instances of the inevitable weirdness of a few rare people, so even if you have encountered instances of this alleged POV, what are the indications that this is much of anything beyond routine hyperbole and weirdness, a great mystery in dire need of explanation?