Reminder: Peter King, Who Wants to Arrest Glenn Greenwald, Is an Actual Supporter of Terrorism


Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is in the news this week for demanding that journalists who publish leaks about national security be arrested and prosecuted. On Fox News just now, he called for Glenn Greenwald specifically to be prosecuted for publishing the documents former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked to The Guardian

Considering his history of supporting the Irish Republican Army and its obscene violence, it's not exactly surprising that King wants to use guns to silence people. It is somewhat surprising (to me, at least) that anybody takes him seriously in light of his record of support for the IRA, and that bookers continue to put his thuggish mug in front of a camera. 

As Greenwald put it just now, "Only In America can a renowned and devoted terrorism supporter like Peter King be the arbiter of national security and treason."

Here's King in 1982

"We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry," Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, "If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it."

But that was so long ago, you might say. In response, I'll direct you to former Reasoner Michael Moynihan's piece on how King hasn't changed:

There are a few King quotes in circulation, recycled and repeated in every story about his previous support for armed republicanism (of the Irish variety), though no one has dug up a transcript of his debate with brave former IRA member-turned-supergrass Sean O'Callaghan, who King compared to Benedict Arnold (and Adams to George Washington). Nor has it been pointed out that after the IRA's famously savage 1985 attack on theNewry RUC barracks, which even they admitted was deserving of criticism, King issued a statement reaffirming his support for the terrorist group.

But it is often argued that he rethought his position on the IRA—and the morality and efficacy of murdering political opponents—after the 9/11 attacks; a line King's Republican apologists have uncritically accepted. After the gruesome 2005 murder of Robert McCartney, in which IRA knuckle draggers beat and stabbed the father of two to death in a Belfast pub, King warned those outraged by the savage attack against a "rush to be too sanctimonious." And now The Guardian writes that "the congressman dismisses attempts to draw a parallel between IRA and al-Qaida, arguing that the IRA never carried out attacks on US soil, and that his only loyalty was to the US," though curiously fails to provide a quote from King.

In other words, he's not sorry for supporting the IRA. So while his committee recounts heart-wrenching stories of victims of Islamic terrorism, I offer to loan King my copy of Lost Lives, a detailed account of how every victim of "the Troubles" died and who was responsible for their murder.

Keep King's record in mind whenever he flaps his jowls about terrorism. 

NEXT: Turkish PM Says Protests Will Be Over in 24 Hours

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. ...and that bookers continue to put his thuggish mug in front of a camera.

    It got us talking about their show, didn't it?

  2. "It's not terrorism when my friends do it."

    1. Especially when it happens on another continent.

  3. "Keep King's record in mind whenever he flaps his jowels about terrorism."


    1. Damn. Busted. WILL FIX. THANK YOU.

    2. what, you've never heard of the family jowels?

      1. Good god -- he was flapping them? In public?

        Weiner, King, what a pair.

    3. A, E, I, O, U and sometimes J.

    4. I took it to be a portmantaeu of "jowls" and "bowels". It's basically the word you use for someone's mouth when they continually spews bullshit.

  4. So everything a government does under the veil of "national security" should be illegal for journalists to report to the public?

    What if the government is arresting people without warrants in the middle of the night and sending them to Siberia? What if the government is going door-to-door, cuffing innocent people with zip-ties, searching their homes without a warrant, and stealing their guns? What if the government is wiretapping every single American citizen's phone and email, and storing their metadata with no probable cause?

    Because these are not hypothetical examples. How many Amendments in the Bill of Rights can the government violate with impunity? Shouldn't the leakers and the reporters who alert the rest of us to these true acts of treason be considered heroes, and not arrested?

    1. Shouldn't the leakers and the reporters who alert the rest of us to these true acts of treason be considered heroes, and not arrested?

      Don't be ridiculous....we voted.

      /t o n y

    2. They're doing it to keep us safe. Why don't you want Americans to be safe?

    3. Let me translate for you.

      When they say "National Security", they mean their security.

      L'etat, c'est moi.

    4. C'mon, CE. I seem to recall the supreme court recently ruled that even if the cops are in your house doing something completely illegal, it would be even more illegal for you to defend yourself. You're supposed to just call MORE cops. How is this any different?

      1. You're supposed to just call MORE cops.

        What for? Cops don't bust cops, and filing a complaint guarantees harassment.

        You're supposed to just lie down and take it, and then sue in civil court if you have the money to hire an attorney.

        And nothing else will happen.

    5. We are all metadata now.

    6. I feel like I just read Judge Napolitano's next article.

  5. It's good to know that supporting terrorists--the right kind, of course--can ensure you a lifelong career as a scumbag thug politician. I really picked the wrong career path, didn't I?

    1. Even you with your countless faults and off putting manner could never achieve a Peter King level of vileness.

      1. Never?!?

        1. Sorry Epi....you have to be born with the potential for that kind of utter loathsomeness.

          You'll never out sprint Usain Bolt and you'll never out scumbag Peter King!

          Sorry.....I know you were hoping!

          Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

          1. I refuse to believe that I can't achieve the very heights of loathsomeness. I have it in me! I know it!

            1. Dare to dream Epi...dare to dream.

              (uttered in the same tone as the doctor telling the kid with a terminal illness that he's going to make it to the major league someday)

            2. meh - Tony and Shreeeeeek are way more loathsome than you.

              1. You guys don't have any faith in me at all.

                1. I believe in you Epi. Just because we shared the same school and I know what a twisted person that place can make you.

                2. I do....I really do.....but I realize that there are limits!

                  I think Humungus thinks you're a pussy!

                  1. think? I know. I always beat him wrestling. The problem with Guidos is they don't have any leg muscle.

                3. I think you could be almost as loathsome, but do you have it in you to write novels as well? Because SugarFree might beat you out there on the wannabe-Peter-King train.

                  1. SF is not loathsome, he's cute in a 2nd circle of hell kind of way.

                  2. I'm not going to be writing any novels, no. Lonewacko: the novel is about as far as I go.

                    1. While Lonewacko: the novel is excellent, you need a format that allows for easy placement in the background when you give CNN interviews. Maybe you could do fingerpainting or something instead? Disgusting, twisted fingerpainting.

                    2. I don't like watercolors. Light to dark is the way of the dilettante. Dark to light is the way of the artist, and that requires oils.

                      No, I'll just stick to my disgusting, twisted ASCII art.


                    3. Not even a short story about Mary?

                      Everything about the room reflected her solitary life, from the keyboard with the worn out caps-lock to the three dozen post-its, on each one written a different pseudonym she had assumed in the last week.

                    4. Any short story about Mary would be non-Euclidean and loathsomely redolent of spheres and dimensions not our own. I'll leave that to NutraSweet, he's good at being loathsomely redolent.

                    5. How the hell did I miss that thread?

                      And that was during my "My job is compeltely useless" phase too.

                    6. you can't press dos for Espanol on a rotary phone.

                      Some of your best work epi.

                      And what ever happened to Art? Is he lurking somewhere else these days?

                4. I have faith that your "chili" recipe is loathsome. It's a start.

                5. Epi, Maybe if you took Dr. Warty's Advanced Course on Loathsomeness (features plenty of Sugarfree fic) you might have a chance.

                  1. Sigh...no one listens....!

                    It can't be learned. It's like trying to be Superman by reading Superman comics!

                    Although if I had one suggestion for Epi it might be to hang out around a nuclear power plant and hope to be bitten by a radioactive Dung Beetle ala Dilbert.

                    That might get you halfway there.

            3. I refuse to believe that I can't achieve the very heights of loathsomeness. I have it in me! I know it!

              Said Epi in Warty's rape-den.

              Seriously, nobody went for the low hanging fruit?

        2. Sorry Epi but never. I have seen you at your worst. You can be maddening but you cant hold a candle to Tony or Shreek on a mild day.

          You have one serious fault that is holding you back from true vileness: you lack the capacity for the utter mendacity that those two display effortlessly.

          1. Thanks Suthen....better and more concise then I could ever hope for!

      2. Wouldn't liking deep-dish pizza put you on that level all by itself?

  6. No shit... I did not know that he supported the fucking IRA.

    1. He only joined the GOP because he mistakenly thought that "Republican" meant they were affiliated with the IRA.

  7. Bit hypocritical of a Thatcher hater like Greenwald to bash an IRA lover like King for being a hypocrite. Not to mention I'm sure Glenn has never supported left-wing terrorists at all.

    1. Greenwald hasn't called for the arrest of people who support Thatcher or terror groups he doesn't like.

    2. Do you have any links to Greenwald's support for IRA terrorism? Thank you in advance.

      1. Hello? Do you have those links I asked for?

        1. Links to Greenwald's support for IRA terrorism? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

          1. I'm going on an errand - those links better be there when I get back.

            1. I never said he supported IRA terrorism. I doubt he is so hostile to the IRA when he thinks of Thatcher's anti-terrorist policies.

              1. Being opposed to the British government's response to the IRA =/= being in favor of the IRA.

                1. Never said he supported the IRA.

                  1. I doubt he is so hostile to the IRA when he thinks of Thatcher's anti-terrorist policies.

                    How else am I supposed to take this? You're insinuating that he's okay with the IRA due to his anti-Thatcher beliefs.

                    1. I mean stuff like this. Does he realize who Sands was? Why would you want to compare Palestinians to him?

                    2. Damn character limit means I can't post that twitter link.

              2. "Bit hypocritical of a Thatcher hater like Greenwald to bash an IRA lover like King"

                Oh, so you have to be Thatcherite to oppose IRA terrorism? That seems to be the line you've adopted, after I called you on your nonsense.

    3. Bit hypocritical of an IRA terrorist apologist to call journalists terrorists.

      1. This is true.

    4. Wow. You really missed the point of this article. Read it again.

    5. So if you hate Thatcher, it's hypocritical to bash an IRA lover, because you must love the IRA? I'm not following.

      1. In that case, 90% of Scotland are terrorists.

        Which might or might not be true, but I dare you to go to a pub in Glasgow and tell them that.

  8. We need such a firm supporter of terrorism to help us craft the policy against terrorism. Only such a person has the first-hand knowledge necessary to the task. It's like the way you need a thief to catch a thief.

    1. +1 Robert Wagner

      (sorry to set the Wayback Machine to a date so far in the past)

      1. and in your apology you referenced the Wayback Machine from Mr. Peabody and Sherman....how meta

        1. Quiet you!


    2. If only OBL has been spared. He could have worked with us: 2012: Osama and Obama, the team that works.

  9. "Only In America can a renowned and devoted terrorism supporter like Peter King be the arbiter of national security and treason."

    Um pretty much every country that ever had a civil war of some sort or supported foreign armed groups?

    1. Still no linkies to support your assertions at 2:56 PM.

  10. Come on guys, we all know it's only terrorism when Muslims do it.


    1. It's only terrorism when we don't like them. When we do like them then they are freedom fighters.

  11. Don't let the Rockwellians hear you call them terrorists.

  12. As Greenwald put it just now, "Only In America can a renowned and devoted terrorism supporter like Peter King be the arbiter of national security and treason."

    Even when he's doing good, Greenwald cannot not say things that are stupid and ignorant.

    1. "Only in America..." is an old expression of amused wonder. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with anti-Americanism.

      1. Well it is completely wrong. Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Chavez, Pol Pot, anyone?

        1. It doesn't always literally mean "only in America," either. Welcome to the culture.

  13. We are all unmediated now.

  14. King warned those outraged by the savage attack against a "rush to be too sanctimonious

    Agree. You don't want to be too sanctimonious. Try to be like Peter King, he's exactly the right amount of sanctimonious.

  15. The IRA is an embarrassment. During the whole "we are Boston" thing, I so wanted to say "I think a few of you might want to apologize to London and Belfast now".

    1. But the people of Boston suck cop dick! It makes Dunphy's leg tingle! How could you hate Bostonians for that?

      1. The IRA were and are Marxist scum. They are every bit as bad as the assholes who set off the Boston Marathon bomb. The IRA did shit like bomb a Remembrance Day parade of pensioners and murdered Lord Mountbatten even though he was out of political life and was nothing but an old man living in retirement. And all that Southie trash helped fund them and gave Gerry Adams a big tongue bath every time he came to the US.

        1. I heard that the IRA was not strongly leftist and there was an internal schism between the mainstream and lefty IRA in the 1960s.

          Southies? As in Southerners? I thought they were down on Catlicks.

    2. I recall an English co-worker from some time back telling me of her nephew in the British Army who while walking a patrol beat caught a slug to the back of his head in the late 80s. It remains unsolved due to the high level of fear the town had for their IRA 'freedom fighters'. I'm sure King prefers it that way. The little people living in fear.

  16. It is amusing to me that a supposedly conservative (and I'm guessing anti-commie) supported a socialist rebel group that received assistance from the East Germans and Soviets.

    That being said, the true Irish Republicans' hearts were in the right place, but their methods were often fucked. You don't blow up civilians, even if their leaders are massive dicks.

    1. And there were multiple factions within the IRA, (at least) one of which was commie oriented. Movements like this take allies where they can get them, and those allies are often scumbags.

      1. Movements like that generally turn into mafias. The Cosa Nostra started out as an IRA like paramilitary group fighting against the Bourbon kinds of Naples who ruled the island in the 19th century. The thing is people who like and are good at violence tend to like being that way and not really have a place in a peaceful world. So these types of organizations never really go away.

        1. Naples isn't on Sicily though.

          This is why I get miffed why I see libertarians advocated killing politicians. I mean once you start killing political opponents where do you stop? By opposing the libertarian killing aren't you a statist?

          1. Before Italy unified it was the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily. The Sicilians had been chafing under the yoke of the Italians for centuries.

          2. This is why I get miffed why I see libertarians advocated killing politicians.

            Depends on the politician and the motivation for the act. The use of force is justified in self-defense, so depending on the deprivations of liberty enacted by politicians, violence in retaliation can be justified.

  17. Peter King has made a career out of post 9/11 hysteria. He needs the perpetual threat of "terrorists" like Alex Jones needs the Illuminati. Nearly everything that has ever come out of his piehole is rancidly fucking idiotic.

    (*although I thought his comment re: Michael Jackson on his death, "He was a pervert, a child molester, he was a pedophile" was actually at least slightly refreshing in context)

    I think his schtick is only possible as a strange kind of foil to the NY-State hypercorrupt liberal-dominated political scene. Just as stupid, just with a red-tie.

    And of course, he's on committees for BOTH "Intelligence" and "Homeland Security"

    This is what keeps me up at night.

    1. Even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn, Gilmore.

      1. By which I was referring to King's comment about Michael Jackson.

    2. In the same way Southern Democrats, when there was such a thing, were often in many ways even worse than northern ones, northern Republicans are the worst. They are so bad I can kind of understand why someone would vote Democrat in those states. The worst politicians in the country, after inner city kleptocrats are largely Blue state Rs. In a state like New York, everyone who is worth a shit and not a full retard liberal just checks out of politics and cedes the field to people like King.

  18. Peter King is Exhibit A for why I would be deeply ambivalent about an effective terror strike on the United States Congress.

    1. I'm honestly at the point where I'd probably cheer, though I'd hope that Amash/Paul/etc. happened to be out at the time.

    2. I have always thought that if only the stupid bastards on 9-11 had hit the Capitol rather than the Pentagon they would have been doing the country a favor. I still wonder how the fuck the retards missed that big white building right there on the hill.

      1. But went after the reinforced structure of the Pentagon instead. I've wondered about that as well.

        1. And killed a bunch of bureaucrats. They clearly had no understanding of how the country actually worked.

          1. To think we still do the State of the Union the way we do it. With Congress, the Supreme Court and department heads all in attendance. It should have been the first thing pulled and go back to the original intent of it being an annual executive written report if we were serious about taking terrorism seriously. Instead, we get security theater where civilians are hassled and groped in airports to show that we are ever so serious about terrorism.

            1. pulled and going back to the original intent

              1. Agreed. I watch the SoTU address and one of the first things I think is that it's gotta be one of the juiciest targets for an AQ terrorist that could ever be. I wouldn't want to be within 50 miles of the place. Or however far a fallout plume might drift. I'm sure it's fantastically defended, but still...

                Then again AQ, or the rest of the people who hate us, haven't figured out that for the price of one Eurofighter, you could fund a dozen terrorist cells with ordnance within the U.S., cause infinitely more havoc, and have those assets last a lot longer.

                It's good to have dumb enemies.

                1. This is not advocating a strike on the Address, FWIW; it's just an expression of surprise that we still needlessly gather so many high-value targets in one area at a time when we're so paranoid about terrorism. Jeez, just video-conference the thing already.

            2. It would be a shame if some old enemy felt he had a debt of honor to decapitate USG.

              1. Did Chris Buckley ever take back that part of his review of Debt of Honor?

                Weirdly, his comment about how unrealistic and jingoistic the ending was, was one of the first things I thought of that day the Towers fell. Well, that and the engineering safety textbook my ex-wife had, that had a drawing of a 737 impacting the tower, as an example of safety factor planning. (The Towers were supposed to survive that kind of impact, up to a fully-loaded 747-400, IIRC.)

                1. (The Towers were supposed to survive that kind of impact, up to a fully-loaded 747-400, IIRC.)


                  The aircraft was a 707. The idea was a 707 lost in fog while on approach (to land), therefore flying at low speed with little fuel.

  19. Pretty ironic, considering his support for the IRA could have been considered "material support" for terrorism, making him eligible for a drone strike if the program had existed back then. I wonder how he would react to that revelation?

  20. So who sponsored these terrorists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)
    Anyone mouthing off about Thatcher? Whomever supported that witch, supported terrorism. I get it though. it is not terrorism if they tell us it's not. England historically isn't a tyrannical empire lol. How about the fact that in the 21st century people still bow to Royals?? Do research on occupied Ireland and not just what you read from journalists. As we all know, they lie or just say what the gov't says. How many of you know that Paul McCartney wrote a song "Give Ireland Back to the Irish" and that song was banned by the BBC?? Let freedom ring folks. How many of you would fight back against an occupying force that systematically beat the living crap out of one group of people? My cousin was beat into a coma during the orange marches outside of his church. You know those racist marches where the protestants get to parade their superiority over the Catholics. Keep believing English propaganda

    1. "The other guys are bastards" is not the sort of argument that is going to work here. It's basically an admission of guilt since it's not a denial but an obfuscation.

  21. The thing with the IRA is that they had a stated policy of either only attacking military or government targets, or giving 30+ minutes warning for the area to be evacuated.

    Did that always happen? No.

    But I think their intent (which they followed the vast majority of time) makes them guerrillas, not terrorists. Terrorists deliberately try to cause as much civilian deaths as possible.

    1. Did that always happen? No.

      As is evidenced by the frequent mortar attacks on London, it was all bullshit.

      Sort of like being able to have your cake and eat it to.

      And it should be noted that much like John's reference to the Cosa Nostra beginning as an armed resistance to the King of Naples, the IRA is/was now heavily involved in criminal endeavors (assuming you don't consider what they did "terrorism").

  22. If it was OK for Irishmen to have and IRA, what would he say about an American Republican Army?
    I'm sure he's supportive of Americans forming a militia to effect governmental change.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.