Glenn Greenwald Containment Thread - Page 3 - Politics and Economics

I don't mind a good polemic attack every now and again, I just don't understand why we can't limit them to only the doctrines supported by those I disagree with...

02-18-2012 , 11:35 PM

#52

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagdonk

Apparently I wore the mask too faintly on that one.

I got what you were going for there but the powers that be took away "liking" posts.

02-18-2012 , 11:53 PM

#53

Monkey Banana

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 40,103

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

I was thinking the left's Glenn Beck.

You can't have ever read any GG if you think this. I never thought you were a reflexive Democrat partisan, suzzer, but maybe I have that wrong?

02-18-2012 , 11:58 PM

#54

ASPoker8

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 22,836

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey Banana

I never thought you were a reflexive Democrat partisan, suzzer

Spoiler:

02-19-2012 , 12:04 AM

#55

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

1) You really found just the most credible set of extremely professional seeming critics of GG there, Klinker. Very good A+ work, I see many Pulitzers in the future of "Right Wing Nut House".

Nice "look over there" attempt.

I post 4 or 5 links showcasing Glenn Greenwald's hackery, wackery, and dishonesty with the facts and dishonesty with his analyses, with excerpts from the first 3 to give examples of what you will read if you read the whole article, and you focus on the last one, the one I clearly said I have not read, but included as a "bonus" b/c it was linked in one of the articles.

The first 3 articles I linked are better written than most of what GG writes and most of what appears at Politard Central, they deal with facts honestly, and they present level-headed and well-reasoned analyses of GG's work. The 2nd one, about GG's Anatomy of a Smear, I included specifically for you. Did you read it? Did you read the first one? Did you read any of them? Or did you just mouse-over the link to the last one?

A quick look at the 1st one would have revealed that Glenn flatly lied. From GG's first paragraph (Obama: I can’t comment on Wall Street prosecutions):

Quote:

Kroft speculated that this was due in part to the fact that, as he put it, “there’s not been any criminal prosecutions of people on Wall Street,”

lol "fact". From the PVC article (or just from your knowledge base):

Quote:

As for fraud on Wall Street, the Obama administration has prosecuted it, and will continue to do so. Anyone remember Raj Rajaratnam, who was put away for 11 years in federal prison after being convicted on 14 counts of conspiracy and securities fraud in the largest insider trading case in history? Yelling about fraud without mentioning this case, flat out, makes Greenwald a liar.

Here, GG is clever enough to ascribe the claim of "fact" to Kroft, which gives GG plausible deniability if someone calls him on it. Try reading the whole article. Try reading the 2nd article, as it is even better. There is nothing difficult to comprehend in those 2 articles, so I am sure you will reach the obvious conclusion. Whether you will admit it or not is another question.

It also appears that you take exception to the mean language used by people who have the brains and required critical thought to see that GG is often a flat-out liar, and have since dispensed with civil discourse after enduring their limit of GG's chicanery. I don't particularly like having to double-check every claim made by a writer who has made numerous false claims in the past. You further take exception to the random nature of the bloggers who post such mean stuff about GG (ignoring that at one time GG too was relatively random until he built his loyal and blind following, often with the aid of SOCK PUPPETS, and further ignoring that GG uses far more vitriolic rhetoric than any of those articles. btw, fyi, sockpuppetry is a serious offense in the journalistic/blogging world: Lee Siegel of TNR Canned For Sock-Puppetry; A Politician Cops To It, Too, as it is solid evidence of a writer's lack of integrity and audience manipulation).

OK, no well-reasoned and factually correct stuff from "random" people saying mean stuff about GG.

How about a nice article from a Harvard Law Prof who calls Glenn out for Glenn's ******ed and factually incorrect analysis of Elena Kagan's 2001 Executive Power writings, how Kagan is not a Bush monster, and how the Bush/Cheney claims of Executive Power are very different from Obama's, b/c Bush/Cheney claimed that their power was derived directly from the Constitution, bypassing congressional oversight, while Obama derives his Exec Power from Congress (AUMF, NDAA)?

The mean old Harvard Prof even states that he is "a big fan of Greenwald's", but that he takes exception to Glenn's hysterical and hyperbolic response to the Prof's correction of GG's nonsense and to Glenn's claim that the Prof had lied about Glenn's ******ed analysis: OK, So Now I'm a Liar

I'm going to quote at length from that article b/c I think the Prof's analysis of Exec Power should be read and understood by all.

Quote:

My claim against Glenn is that he is fudging a critical distinction to the end of painting Kagan as some kind of Bush-Cheney monster. The distinction is between lawyers like Kagan who believe the president has broad power to control the executive branch because Congress (directly or indirectly) gave him that power, and others like Cheney who believe the president has broad power to control the executive branch because the Constitution (directly or indirectly) gave him that power. The critical word here is "broad": Everyone agrees that there is a core of executive authority that the constitution has vested in the president exclusively. The debate is how broadly that core extends.

The difference between these two positions is critical. If you believe the Constitution gives the president absolute control over the administration, then there's nothing that Congress can do about it. But if you believe that it is Congress who has given the president this power, then Congress can take away what it has given.

There is no ambiguity about what Kagan believes in this respect. As she wrote in her important 2001 piece, "Congress may limit the President's capacity to direct administrative officials... If Congress ... has stated its intent with respect to Presidential involvement, then that is the end of the matter."

Glenn has referred repeatedly to this article in his criticisms of Kagan. Sometimes he is careful to make clear that it expresses a theory of executive power that is radically different from the theories of Bush-Cheney. In his original "Case Against Kagan," he admitted that Kagan's theory is "many universes away from what Bush/Cheney ended up doing." I'd quibble with the characterization. It isn't "many universes away." It is the same universe, just the opposite view. Bush/Cheney-ites believe Congress is irrelevant. Kagan believes Congress ultimately controls.

But more recently, Glenn has been less careful in the distinction. Just yesterday, on DemocracyNow, he stated this:

Quote:

But, actually, she did write a 2001 law review article on executive power that took an extremely expansive view of executive power that she herself acknowledged was first formulated by the Reagan administration to allow presidents to control administrative agencies instead of letting Congress do so.

This is of course flatly wrong. Kagan's position does not "allow presidents to control administrative agencies instead of letting Congress do so." As I quoted above, under her position, Congress ultimately controls "instead of" the president.

The same sloppiness seeped into another appearance Glenn made on DemocracyNow about a month ago. As he said on April 13:

Quote:

And what little there is to see comes from her confirmation hearing as Solicitor General and a law review article she wrote in 2001, in which she expressed very robust defenses of executive power, including the power of the president to indefinitely detain anybody around the world as an enemy combatant, based on the Bush-Cheney theory that the entire world is a battlefield and the US is waging a worldwide war.

Notice now the "law review article she wrote in 2001" is being used in the context of supporting "robust defenses of executive power, including the power to indefinitely detain." It was this language that I called Glenn out on last night explicitly, asserting that the 2001 article did not even remotely support a president's constitutional claim to detain, Congress's contrary view notwithstanding.

Before I had seen Glenn's response this morning, we had emailed about this point. He had acknowledged that the "grammar is a bit vague" but that he "never thought, implied or claimed that that article had anything to do with detention."

But the question isn't detention. The question of "executive power" (as opposed to government power generally) is whether the president has a constitutional authority to decide what to do independent of Congress. That was the constitutional challenge raised by Bush-Cheney. No one thinks that there's a serious constitutional question (beyond due process rights) in this Court if Congress expressly gives the president the power to detain. The whole constitutional fight is about whether that policy judgment is one that Congress gets to participate in, or whether it is the president's to make alone. And what Glenn was saying is that Kagan's 2001 article is consistent with the "robust views" of executive power that Bush/Cheney advanced.

And so as I said last night on the Maddow show:

Quote:

Now, that article was written before George Bush, before 9/11, and before George Bush articulated anything about this power. It has nothing to do with the power of the president to detain anybody. The power of the unitary executive that George Bush articulated -- this kind of über-power of unitary executive -- was nowhere even hinted at in Elena's article. Yet Glenn has repeatedly asserted that she is George Bush, and that is just flatly wrong.

[Then GG responds w/ this: How people spew total falsehoods on TV, in which he attempts to to call what Lessig quoted "blatantly false", forgetting apparently that there are videos and transcripts of Glenn saying exactly what Lessig said he said. Then, after falsely calling Lessig a spewer of falsehoods, Glenn breaks into some "look over there" (paraphrasing) "OMG!, Obama's got a war room [read: truth room] to discredit Kagan's critics and me, Kagan has no judicial record, Kagan and some Bush-nominated appellate judge endorsed her, blah, blah, blah" subterfuge.]

[Lessig continues]

This is my "falsehood" "spewed on TV." Except that whether it was "spewed" or not, it isn't false. Glenn has repeatedly suggested that Kagan's 2001 article shows that she believes the president has the power "instead of" Congress. That characterization of Kagan's view is flatly wrong. It was wrong to suggest she had said that about the ordinary work of administrative agencies. It was super-wrong to suggest she had said that about anything to do with the president's power to wage war. To link the two together in a single sentence would confuse -- even if the grammar were clear. And to hear people echo the words of Glenn, it is clear his confusion has spread.

Chill, Glenn. Dial down the outrage. Dial back the hyperbole. And stop calling those who applaud you liars. No doubt there are other progressives the president could have nominated with a clearer public record. I can well understand the frustration of some that the president didn't pick one of these others, even if I don't share it.

But you can make your point well enough without painting everyone else as liars or constitutional crazies. If I was confused by the "vagueness" in your "grammar," I apologize. I wouldn't have used it had I not read you repeat the thrust of the point again and again. But now that you've clarified it -- now that you've acknowledged that the 2001 piece does not support the Bush/Cheney doctrine of "executive power" -- let's move on.

It should be noted that GG makes an attempt to discredit Lessig by only addressing GG's April DemocracyNow appearance, where he cited Kagan's 2001 Harvard Law Review article as well as Kagan's Confirmation Hearing (though GG offers no statements from that hearing) while ignoring his May DemocracyNow appearance, wherein GG only cites her 2001 article and then goes on to claim that Kagan supported presidential, constitutionally-based Executive Power over congressionally-based Executive Power.

Additional reading: Lessig Slams Greenwald's 'Absurd' Kagan Critiques

Lessig:

Quote:

The hyperbole in what Glenn is saying here is something we really have to check. He said right at the top of your show that there's a complete blank slate here. That every substantive legal question she has left unanswered.

That is just absurd. She has written three extraordinarily important pieces mapping out a theory of the First Amendment.

Fly:

Quote:

2) WHAT THE **** IS YOUR POINT?

You are starting to sound like the media talking heads who didn't know how to respond to the Occupy protestors, became confused, and resorted to: WHAT'S YOUR MESSAGE?, WHAT DO YOU WANT?, YOU NEED TO MAKE DEMANDS!!

The Occupy Message was obviously, "Wall Street is ****ing us and it hurts. We want Wall Street regulated".

My POINT is similarly obvious: GLENN GREENWALD IS A DISHONEST HACK!

I even said as much in my OP's second sentence, and I said it several times in the other thread. You sound like a snagglepuss repeating that question so many times.

There is no way that you can read the 1st 2 articles I have linked, or the Prof's article, and continue to believe that you don't need to double-check everything that Greenwald spews, unless you like to be led by a charlatan to believe whatever he wants you to believe.

02-19-2012 , 12:16 AM

#56

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,986

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monkey Banana

You can't have ever read any GG if you think this. I never thought you were a reflexive Democrat partisan, suzzer, but maybe I have that wrong?

I wasn't being 100% serious. No one is as crazy as Beck.

I think I've been pretty clear itt and others what I do and don't like about GG.

02-19-2012 , 12:34 AM

#57

JayTeeMe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 29,411

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagdonk

Apparently I wore the mask too faintly on that one.

Oh, well at least I got to call Fly an "ahole".

And mean it as a compliment in a way.

02-19-2012 , 12:40 AM

#58

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by Case Closed

That is one hell of an ironic OP by Klinker. Here is a quote that I love:

Title:

Woaw, bold statement here. I am sure there will be some good solid information to back up this bold, dare I say hyperbolic, claim.

Okay...liberals being misogynistic, nothing new.

Did you notice that that article is from a site called RightWing NutHouse?

Did you notice that its author is obviously a Republican?

Did you notice that I clearly said in my OP that I have not read the article and that it was "bonus" reading?

Did you notice that that article was the very last link I posted?

Why did you focus on that one and not the first 3, for which I included the original GG article and the rebuttal?

Quote:

But no points in the first paragraph. But with this type of table pounding I am sure the heat is coming soon.

Okay, here is a quote that pisses this blogger off:

To which he responds with:

Hmmm, he's not really addressing anything that GG said. This whole thing is a very ironic attack on ideas that GG is not actually representing.

Let me read the article, b/c the author who linked it would not do so for no reason. WOW, no, forget it. I did just read it quickly and you clearly failed to quote the author's paragraph immediately following the GG quote you posted. This is what the author wrote directly in response to GG's quote:

Quote:

As Israel’s biggest and best ally and virtual guarantor of their existence, of course we have an abiding interest in the conflict. The wonder is that Greenwald evidently feels sticking a knife in the back of your ally while she is fighting for her life by condemning this bomb going off in the wrong place or that bullet not hitting its intended target is just fine. Better yet, take the morally reprehensible position of a “pox on both your houses” and condemn everybody. That way, you can do away with the only democracy in the Middle East as an ally and simply treat them as we might look upon Sierra Leone or Gabon.

Which is absolutely responsive to GG's quote. Why would you skip a paragraph after GG's quote and then say, "ahaa, the author is not addressing what GG said?".

Bizarre. Try re-reading that article and try reading the first 3.

Quote:

Funny post Klinker. Keep it up, good times.

failboat.jpg

02-19-2012 , 12:47 AM

#59

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Man, that is one impressive wall of text. Pretty hard to write that much and not address any of his arguments, but somehow you did it!

Had you read the links, you'd have seen that GG's "arguments" were addressed and plainly dishonest.

I mean, if you are not willing to read long posts I link, what makes you think I am going to spend hours writing the same thing, so that you can ignore it?

02-19-2012 , 01:11 AM

#60

TomCowley

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 5,649

I read the relevant sections of the NDAA bill at the time. I read GG's article on it at the time and didn't notice any glaring problems. Now I've read the blogger you quoted in the OP. After all of that, I have absolutely no ****ing idea what the blogger is going on about.

02-19-2012 , 01:22 AM

#61

lagdonk

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,861

Hey Klink,

Scanned all the articles in your OP and the stuff in your more recent post. What I see within the noise are a series, not huge or systematic, more like sporadic, of alleged (some of them very likely provable) errors, misstatements, dubious insinuations, hasty interpretations of aspects of certain legal documents, and (some largely irrelevant) non-disclosure of conflict of interest something or other, all of which one might reasonably level at GG. Yet this material is woven by you (and others) into noxious rants that push key rhetorical levers and bits of emotive language and (supremely counter-productive) character attacks way beyond what seems believable, let alone balanced. Compare the tone and attitude even of Lessig's piece to the one you and these others employ. The latter stinks to high heaven of the very thing continually attributed to GG: a stupid, desperate smear job.

Now maybe you and your fellow travelers are truly doing noble, illuminating expositions of GG's alarmingly numerous flaws and foibles—if so, I suggest you drastically alter how you're coming across verbally, because my "Danger! Propaganda!" meter is hitting 8 out of 10 every time I read the stuff.

02-19-2012 , 01:32 AM

#62

Turn Prophet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 11,558

The mere fact that people seem to lose their **** at GG without it going the other way (he's absurdly civil even when writing a scathing attack) tends to push my benefit of the doubt toward GG on tough issues.

02-19-2012 , 01:39 AM

#63

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Yeah you can almost sense the switch when he's, for example, posting a exhaustively well researched and insightful takedown of a Romney fundraiser:
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/bill...lence_critics/

I doubt GG needs to distort the truth much about Romney, but considering GG is a dishonest hack, I'd still have to double-check every claim he makes. Let me read it tho; I'm guessing there is the usual GG misdirection, distortion, hyperbole and dishonesty, if you look hard enough (took a peek and lol the donor's name is VanderSloot. Funny that Glenn makes the same money >>>> political influence attacks that he decried when Ames/Levine made them about Koch, TSA, GG and various other libertarian-connected "reporters, journalists and bloggers", which I will link in another post).

Quote:

but it's NOT FAIR when he turns that same spotlight on "our" side. COME ON BRO BE A TEAM PLAYER

Two of the first three articles I linked have nothing to do with Obama, or only tangentially in that the TSA and SEIU are both unions and therefore will most likely support Obama. But 2 of the 3 do not pertain to Obama's actions in anyway. So, to borrow your favorite and most devastating rebuttal: WHAT'S YOUR POINT????

And this GG Romney article has what to do with Obama or "our side"?

I wanted to get to this in a reply to Goofyballer's nonsense post, but I am not a blind follower of the Dem party.

Now that the Senate is no longer 60/40, I support Scott Brown over Elizabeth Warren, b/c Brown is for the 3 Mass casinos legislation and Warren is against it (the bill has been passed and signed). Warren is a past Sunday School teacher who stated that her beliefs and politics were inspired by John Wesley. **** that noise. Ask Warren what she thinks about online-gaming. Plus, she's a carpetbagger from Oklahoma. I've blasted Warren on various Mass political sites. She makes my skin crawl.

Also, Brown voted for DADT Repeal, Dodd-Frank, and START Treaty. The Tea-Party hates Scott Brown now. Liberal and sane Republicans have long been part of the Massachusetts landscape: Edward Brooke. Brown is up 49-40% over Warren last I checked.

I also hated Martha Coakley and did not support her in her run against Brown, b/c Coakley inserted language in the previous Mass Casino bill making online-gaming (including poker) a felony (that bill was defeated). Coakley had other problems as well, but I would've held my nose and been ok with it if Coakley got elected b/c at the time Brown gave the GOP the 41st vote which almost killed health care reform and might have killed DADT and other needed legislation (plus, it would've removed Coakley from state politics and her State AG position). Electing Brown again over Warren won't make much difference in the US Senate, and I can't stomach Warren. She can take her Sunday Schoolmarm routine back to Oklahoma.

I'm not in love with Brown, but we can do better than Warren or Coakley. Ed Markey would've been great, but he didn't want it, or Capuano.

So, I'm not a blind Dem Party loyalist. I am a liberal in the Descartes, Locke, Rousseau existential and rational, non-religious and non-romantic tradition.

So, saying that I am a blind party-loyalist is ******ed nonsense. I prefer truthful and non-hyperbolic critics over GG's dishonesty. Simple as that.

02-19-2012 , 01:53 AM

#64

2/325Falcon

Conehead

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 21,907

Greenwald is just another op-ed writer, but calling him absurdly civil is a huge lol.

02-19-2012 , 01:54 AM

#65

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagdonk

Hey Klink,

Scanned all the articles in your OP and the stuff in your more recent post. What I see within the noise are a series, not huge or systematic, more like sporadic, of alleged (some of them very likely provable) errors, misstatements, dubious insinuations, hasty interpretations of aspects of certain legal documents, and (some largely irrelevant) non-disclosure of conflict of interest something or other, all of which one might reasonably level at GG. Yet this material is woven by you (and others) into noxious rants that push key rhetorical levers and bits of emotive language and (supremely counter-productive) character attacks way beyond what seems believable, let alone balanced. Compare the tone and attitude even of Lessig's piece to the one you and these others employ. The latter stinks to high heaven of the very thing continually attributed to GG: a stupid, desperate smear job.

What exactly stinks? Just that Lessig exposes Greenwald as factually incorrect? The other articles do the same. It would be pretty obvious to even a high-schooler. You can lalalalala all you want. Anyone reading those links without a devotion to Glenn would see the glaring examples of Glenn's dishonesty. Not ambiguous at all.

Quote:

Now maybe you and your fellow travelers are truly doing noble, illuminating expositions of GG's alarmingly numerous flaws and foibles—if so, I suggest you drastically alter how you're coming across verbally, because my "Danger! Propaganda!" meter is hitting 8 out of 10 every time I read the stuff.

Every time you read the stuff? Ha! Where else have you read any stuff that was negative about Glenn? My guess is you haven't, besides what I have posted.

Tell me this: Did you know, before I posted the fact, that GG was found by a judge to have illegally and unethically wiretapped conversations?

At any rate, here are a bunch of other libertarian and Koch connected "journalists, reporters, and bloggers", who first denied any associations with libertarianism and Koch, but after admitted and disclosed that their associations were numerous. It also includes a timeline about how this played out after Ames/Levine broke the news that the Kochs and the Tea-party are tightly linked.

The Koch-Whore Archipelago: How The Billionaire Kochs Screwed My Scoop While Screwing America

02-19-2012 , 01:59 AM

#66

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCowley

I read the relevant sections of the NDAA bill at the time. I read GG's article on it at the time and didn't notice any glaring problems. Now I've read the blogger you quoted in the OP. After all of that, I have absolutely no ****ing idea what the blogger is going on about.

I agree that that NDAA article I linked was not that great and not very well-written. I mostly linked it b/c it enumerated GG's lies re: NDAA.

For a far better analysis of NDAA, read this: NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed

It makes short work of the nonsense GG spewed about NDAA.

02-19-2012 , 02:00 AM

#67

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagdonk

Hey Klink,

Scanned all the articles in your OP and the stuff in your more recent post. What I see within the noise are a series, not huge or systematic, more like sporadic, of alleged (some of them very likely provable) errors, misstatements, dubious insinuations, hasty interpretations of aspects of certain legal documents, and (some largely irrelevant) non-disclosure of conflict of interest something or other, all of which one might reasonably level at GG. Yet this material is woven by you (and others) into noxious rants that push key rhetorical levers and bits of emotive language and (supremely counter-productive) character attacks way beyond what seems believable, let alone balanced. Compare the tone and attitude even of Lessig's piece to the one you and these others employ. The latter stinks to high heaven of the very thing continually attributed to GG: a stupid, desperate smear job.

Now maybe you and your fellow travelers are truly doing noble, illuminating expositions of GG's alarmingly numerous flaws and foibles—if so, I suggest you drastically alter how you're coming across verbally, because my "Danger! Propaganda!" meter is hitting 8 out of 10 every time I read the stuff.

O I C now. The bolded is your problem.

02-19-2012 , 02:55 AM

#68

TomCowley

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 5,649

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klinker

The stuff that's called lies isn't lies. Specifically:

Quote:

Lie #1. There is no such thing as an “Indefinite Detention Bill”. To imply there is means you’re also implying that Obama can veto such a thing without killing the entire NDAA. He can't.

This is just nonsense. And GG didn't even imply such a thing.

Quote:

Lie #2. Obama did not announce his intention to sign the “Indefinite Detention Bill” and for Greenwald to claim it’s “embedded” in the 2012 NDAA is an obfuscation, if not an outright falsehood, because it implies a possibility for him to veto just that “bill.”

That's what "embedded" means. It's a part of something else. You know, like the exact opposite of what the previous quote said he lied about.

Quote:

Lie #3. “Until the end of the hostilities” does not necessarily mean “indefinite detention.” It’s entirely possible, even likely, that Obama will declare an end to al Qaeda within the next year, and he has already all but declared an end to hostilities against the Taliban. In fact, if we oversee an election of Democrats in 2012, and they declare both “wars” at an end, guess what happens?

It's not indefinite because it might end at an indefinite time in the future. Wow. I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.

Quote:

Lie #4. As you can see when you read both d) and e) in section 1021 above, the “bill” does NOT expand the scope of the AUMF, and explicitly does NOT expand it.

Greenwald deals with all of this, correctly, in detail. You know, by saying, explicitly,

Quote:

Originally Posted by GG

It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.

It is true, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) already vests the power of indefinite detention in the President, and post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view (just as the Bush DOJ argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) allowed them to eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by law). That’s why the NDAA can state that nothing is intended to expand the 2001 AUMF while achieving exactly that: because the Executive and judicial interpretation being given to the 20o1 AUMF is already so much broader than its language provides.

But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being expressly codified by statute (there’s not a word about detention powers in the 2001 AUMF). Indeed, as the ACLU and HRW both pointed out, it’s the first time such powers are being codified in a statute since the McCarthy era Internal Security Act of 1950, about which I wrote yesterday.

Anybody who takes those paragraphs and comes up with "Lie #4" is either an idiot of the highest order or somebody grasping at straws to write a hatchet piece.

Quote:

Lie #5. The “bill” DOES explicitly exempt US citizens from its provisions. Strangely, Greenwald cites Section 1022 as proving his point. Here’s the language:

Again, Greenwald deals with all of this in detail (it's as dumb as lie #4).

Your blog link is just a seriously rancid steaming turd. I don't know how anybody could look at it in detail (i.e. cross-reference with what GG actually said) and not realize that.

02-19-2012 , 03:01 AM

#69

JayTeeMe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 29,411

Klinker tho

02-19-2012 , 03:41 AM

#70

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turn Prophet

The mere fact that people seem to lose their **** at GG without it going the other way (he's absurdly civil even when writing a scathing attack) tends to push my benefit of the doubt toward GG on tough issues.

rofl wtf does this mean?

Cheeriho good chap YOU ****ING AUTHORITARIAN ASS

Good day, give your mother my word.

02-19-2012 , 03:51 AM

#71

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCowley

The stuff that's called lies isn't lies. Specifically:

This is just nonsense. And GG didn't even imply such a thing.

Yes, he did. He even titled his article that way.

Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law by Glenn Greenwald.

Hint: there is no such thing as an Indefinite Detention bill.

Quote:

That's what "embedded" means. It's a part of something else. You know, like the exact opposite of what the previous quote said he lied about.

Not possible, as there is no such thing as an "indefinite detention" bill, and no such thing as "indefinite detention" "embedded" in the NDAA. "Indefinite Detention" only exists in Glenn Greenwald's mind and in his articles.

Perhaps you want to take a guess as to how many times "Indefinite Detention" appears in the NDAA?

Hint: ZERO.

Quote:

It's not indefinite because it might end at an indefinite time in the future. Wow. I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.

I'm positive you don't. It plainly means what it means, but that doesn't mean that it has anything to do with the NDAA or holding enemy combatants for a defined period of time.

The NDAA is clear that "detention" is authorized "until the end of hostilities", which is NOT "indefinite". It is defined.

Quote:

Sec. 1021 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Again, GG just makes stuff up.

Quote:

Greenwald deals with all of this, correctly, in detail. You know, by saying, explicitly,

Anybody who takes those paragraphs and comes up with "Lie #4" is either an idiot of the highest order or somebody grasping at straws to write a hatchet piece.

Quote:

Again, Greenwald deals with all of this in detail (it's as dumb as lie #4).

You don't realize that the Constitution authorizes suspension of habeas review and the detainment of enemy combatants "until the end of hostilities" under the Suspension Clause of Art I, do you?

Which is why AUMF is Constitutional, but that does not extend to "civil detentions" which are guaranteed habeas review by the SCOTUS.

Can either you or Glenn explain how “civil detention” can be “indefinite” when SCOTUS has guaranteed habeas review before a neutral party?

Quote:

In Ex parte Milligan (1866), the Supreme Court decided that the suspension of habeas corpus was lawful, but military tribunals did not apply to citizens in states that had upheld the authority of the Constitution and where civilian courts were still operating.

SCOTUS is very clear on that.

Quote:

Your blog link is just a seriously rancid steaming turd. I don't know how anybody could look at it in detail (i.e. cross-reference with what GG actually said) and not realize that.

Have you read anything other then GG or a GG link about NDAA? I doubt it.

Try this: NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed

02-19-2012 , 04:00 AM

#72

Michael Davis

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 10,009

Klinker is why the government uses obfuscatory language when writing laws.

02-19-2012 , 04:02 AM

#73

JayTeeMe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 29,411

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klinker

Perhaps you want to take a guess as to how many times "Indefinite Detention" appears in the NDAA?

Hint: ZERO.

Game. Set. Match.

02-19-2012 , 04:13 AM

#74

TomCowley

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 5,649

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klinker

Yes, he did. He even titled his article that way.

Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law by Glenn Greenwald.

Hint: there is no such thing as an Indefinite Detention bill.

Hint: unless every bill is referred to by its complete text, any whackjob can, and evidently will, claim misrepresentation by your standard. Nobody with a junior-high understanding of civics can be confused, and those without one are incapable of understanding the article anyway.

Quote:

Perhaps you want to take a guess as to how many times "Indefinite Detention" appears in the NDAA?

It says "without trial until the end of hostilities". I'll quote dictionary.com here to show that describing that as "indefinite" is legitimate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by definition of indefinite

not clearly defined or determined; not precise or exact: an indefinite boundary; an indefinite date in the future.

Here's another example of something indefinite: Your butthurt over GG's statement will last until you accept the dictionary definition of "indefinite".

02-19-2012 , 04:15 AM

#75

Klinker

adept

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,115

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Davis

GG cashflow goal is why the government uses obfuscatory language when writing laws.

FYP.

I mean, basically GG is a Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck who just makes ridiculous and dishonest attacks on everyone and everything to make a buck. GG is far cleverer than Rush or Beck tho.

Nothing the public loves more than "outrage" and nothing drives more traffic to Salon than GG's poutrageous articles. I mean, just the way he titles his articles and delivers the red meat in his first paragraphs is enough to ensure that his garbage will be linked thousands of times, without most people actually reading and double-checking the "facts".

I'll agree that I am an idiot for linking several times to Salon, b/c links and clicks area Glenn's bread and butter.

And I am sorry that for some of you this thread is probably a lot like when you found out Santa Claus was a hoax.

Page 3 of 11

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Last

...

Page 3 of 11

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Last