Surveillance

New York Times Columnist Andrew Sorkin Would 'Almost' Arrest Glenn Greenwald for Committing Journalism

|

Below is a brief comment from New York Times financial columnist Andrew Sorkin at CNBC's Squawk Box showing a bit of contempt for journalism that insists on operating independently of the government's desires, as is currently the case with the Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian helping Edward Snowden get the word out about the National Security Agency's surveillance of Americans:

For those who can't watch, Sorkin says, "I would arrest him and I would almost arrest Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who seems to be out there … he wants to help him get to Ecuador."

I don't know what it means to "almost" arrest somebody. I assume Sorkin wants to intimidate Greenwald with the possibility of arrest to get him to stop actually helping his leaker, rather than just using him to get killer stories and then just abandoning him to government retaliation?

The statement prompted Glenn Greenwald to tweet "Should the NYT editors & reporters who published classified information about false Iraq WMD claims be arrested?" at him. (More of the exchange can be read here at Talking Points Memo)

NEXT: Police Dispatcher Testifies That George Zimmerman Did Not Seem Like a Man on the Verge of Violence

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. Sorkin? Oh, please tell me he’s related to the West Wing douchebag. This alone would be enough to start a heredity theory of douchebagism.

    1. I can’t wait to see how Aaron Sorkin tackles this issue two years from now.

      1. I can. I watched not one minute of his circle-jerk Newsman as Upholder of American Righteousness show.

        1. I got into a brief but very annoying conversation with somebody a while back who was insistent that The Newsroom had no particular political slant. That kind of “fish don’t know they’re in water” stuff always drives me up the wall.

        2. I couldn’t make it through the first episode, but I did end up half-watching a few more episodes as I read about how much worse it got. It is so hilariously awful.

          And apparently the season ended with Jeff Daniels calling the Tea Party the American Taliban. Which is so fucking delusional I can’t help but wonder where it can possibly go.

          I mean, remember, Sorkin is probably the biggest booster of Baby Boomer Greatness, meaning he lived through the turmoil of the 60s and 70s. But the marginally successful, non-violent Tea Party is the terrorist organization.

          1. I haven’t the slightest clue why people find the show the least bit original or unbiased.

    2. The punchable face is the douchbaggery giveaway.

  2. The statement prompted Glenn Greenwald to tweet “Should the NYT editors & reporters who published classified information about false Iraq WMD claims be arrested?” at him. (More of the exchange can be read here at Talking Points Memo)

    Whoa, whoa there now… that was different. Our team wasn’t in charge when that happened! It was Booosh!

    1. It’s not immediately clear that the situations are the same. The whole debate is about the difference between whistleblowing and wanton leaking of government secrets.

      1. Once again, you amaze me with your ability to read with a government ballsack spread across the bridge of your nose.

        Braille computer?

        1. So this situation is totally unnuanced and clear. Or would that be just how your brain needs things?

          1. So this situation is totally unnuanced and clear.

            Absolutely. Snowden exposed quite a bit of malfeasance on the government’s part and you want to be pragmatic about it. The NYT did the same and you cheer them wildly.

            What part of that isn’t crystal clear?

            1. I’m not sure it’s malfeasance, though I don’t like it, and it’s without question not malfeasance on the level of WMD. But I tend to weigh these things on body count.

              1. If people aren’t dying yet, it’s ok with Tony, unless of course somebody’s feelings are hurt, but only the right people’s feelings, just so we’re clear.

              2. It’s not malfeasance to employ a surveillance program that:
                doesn’t have any PC
                doesn’t meet the threshold of evidence collection
                is done through a secret interpretation of a secret court order of a secret law
                doesn’t have any oversight
                doesn’t do what the NSA tells Congress it’s designed to do or the court order requires it to do

                Are you out of your fucking mind? No way does this pass constitutional muster, which is the highest law of the land. This is impeachable and the entire admin or any congresspeople who knew it was going on and didn’t speak up all deserve to be imprisoned. That goes for the assholes that started it in the Bush administration.

                As for WMD’s, this is far, far worse because it was done against us and against our will.

              3. Tony| 6.24.13 @ 7:22PM |#
                “I’m not sure it’s malfeasance”

                Yep, shithead, that is not surprising.

              4. so you were ok with shipping all the Japanese off to a camp, since there was no body count?

      2. Which Obama seems to think is only bad if it embarrasses the government. If a leak makes the government look good, it’s just great.

      3. When the secrets wantonly leaked are that said government has been lying it’s ass off, swearing up and down to congress and the american people that it is not indiscriminately spying on the american people, and lying under the assumption by everyone that such spying is illegal, then wantonly leaking secrets is called whistle blowing.

        They were breaking the law, Snowden blew the whistle on them, and they are pissed.

        C’mon Tony, you are cool with secret illegal spying being overseen by a secret court? God you are more of a fascist piece of cheese than I thought, and that is saying a lot.

        1. C’mon Tony, you are cool with secret illegal spying being overseen by a secret court?

          If it’s his team doing it, then yes.

        2. Nope, not OK with it. Things are better than they were in the 9/11 aftermath when it was basically a law-free free-for-all for executive authority. But as a civil libertarian I tend to value privacy more than the average American. But I think it’s pretty clear that the system is, as of now, legal. If there’s no checks-and-balances oversight, then that’s definitely a problem.

          It doesn’t help the conversation–an important one–by calling names. Libertarians never win these arguments you know. Americans are a lot more tolerant of big government than you like to think.

          1. Shorter answer – My peeps are in charge now, so it’s better by comparison. That’s good enough for me.

          2. “It doesn’t help the conversation–an important one–by calling names.”

            Oh, so now we suddenly prefer civil discourse?

          3. Tony:
            “But I think it’s pretty clear that the system is, as of now, legal. ”

            And I’m pretty sure that lying to congress is illegal.

          4. A. It is pretty clear that all of this is illegal. Read the 4th amendment. Nowhere does it make exceptions for secret Star Chambers and blanket searches without cause. Nowhere does it make exceptions where due process can be disposed of. In fact, it specifically says that the government may not dispose of due process.

            B. I am not trying to win an argument and this is not a popularity contest. I dont give a fuck what the american people tolerate. This government, and I include more than just this administration in that, is engaging in serious criminal behavior.

            C. I would also point out that tyrannical governments depend heavily on secrecy. This one is behaving like some banana republic run by some second rate thug-soldier who seized power in a coup.

            D. Fuck you Tony. If you dont like being called a fascist shit, dont spend years advocating fascism.

          5. Tony| 6.24.13 @ 7:21PM |#
            “Nope, not OK with it. Things are better than they were in the 9/11 aftermath when it was basically a law-free free-for-all for executive authority.”

            It is possible that shithead bleeves this. Shithead has shown himself capable of bleeving all sorts of fantasies.
            So it says a lot about his gullibility and the level of his intelligence.

          6. Americans are a lot more tolerant of laws against sodomy and same-sex marriage than you like to think.

            Incidentally, it’s interesting to see how a lot of so-called progressives have completely turned on Greenwald, who used to be a patron saint of the left.

        3. Let me delve into that just a bit farther.

          A court, whose members are anonymous, whose rulings are secret, holds secret sessions about secret executive actions that are executed according to a secret interpretation of law. This secret court is supposedly authorized to override the supreme law of the land.

          The current administration, and probably the last one as well, has been lying to us about the activities of this court and the NSA, and engaging in activities that they told us were illegal and not being engaged in.

          Along comes a guy who outs them, revealing their tyranny and criminality, and he is called a traitor.

          So you are ok with all this Tony? You think this is ok?

          1. He’s not OK with it, he just thinks that it’s all legal and therefore LEAVE BARACK ALONE!

            1. I thought earlier he was complaining that libertarians go to the constitution, instead of answering the “what is better for human well-being?” question. Ah well. Apparently, legalism has it’s moments.

  3. I’d almost punch my fist right through Sorkin’s face!

  4. Watching journalists circle the bowl is my new favorite pastime.

    1. Circling? Turds just kind of spin around in the bowl.

      1. Circling? Turds just kind of spin around in the bowl.

        What, you got one of them EPA-approved low-flow toilets?

        Protip: go to a hotel and purchase a toilet from one of their procurement people and pay them cash on the side for it. Those toilets suck turds down better than a progressive.

        1. I want one of those cruise ship toilets that suck shit down like you just ripped off a door of a 747 at 40,000ft.

          1. As an added bonus, you don’t get the recoil-drip of turd water splashing you with those things.

          2. Despite the depiction in World War Z, holes in an aircraft cabin don’t really result in a “whooooosh”… it takes a pretty big hole to overcome the cabin pressurisation system, and aircraft hulls are actually pretty leaky when they’re all in one piece.

        2. I learn more things here…

          1. If you ever get to the point where you are shitting gin you’ll appreciate all the info.

    2. Watching that clip is amazing. Sorkin does the exact thing he’s arresting Greenwald for.

      “I feel like a) we screwed this up to even let him get to Russia…”

      We? He’s including himself in the Obama administration’s machinations.

      1. We? He’s including himself in the Obama administration’s machinations.

        It’s the royal asshole “we.”

      2. The government is Sorkin.

      3. “We” really screwed this up by not starting a colossal international incident. I mean, really, shabby work, guys.

  5. Snowden has caused the press to go full retard. The mask hasn’t slipped: They’ve ripped it off.

    1. And they would have gotten away with it to if it wasn’t for those damn, motherfucking kids!

    2. The Fatherland Security types at Fox News don’t know what to do.

      They would normally want to torture Snowden but like the anti-Obama angle to the story.

      1. Only partially true. There are plenty of Rs who want Snowden’s head. Pay attention.

      2. Palin’s Buttplug| 6.24.13 @ 6:08PM |#
        “The Fatherland Security types at Fox News don’t know what to do.”

        Right, dipshit, but the blithering idiots at the NYT have it all figured out.

        1. They do Sev. “Support the Democrats, no matter what.”

        2. Go easy on PB, he is a non-partisan libertarian freedom fighter.

          1. Has the highest score on the libertarian party purity test in all of recorded history too.

    3. As John pointed out today, they have reached the point of calling for the criminalization of their own profession in support of President Not My Fault.

      Amazing.

      1. Really well put Suthen.

        I’m going to pilfer ‘president not my fault’

  6. “the journalist who seems to be out there”

    Alot of stuff jsut seems to be way out there dude.

    /WomSom

    1. Anally fuck that beautiful bean footage!

      1. And make big bucks on your laptop!

  7. Snowden’s last few days in Hong Kong: dramatic events prompted flight

    At Friday’s meeting, which lasted less than 30 minutes, Ho said the official asked if he had written authorisation to act on Snowden’s behalf and Ho said yes.

    But he did not bring a copy of the authorisation to that meeting and the official did not ask to see it.

    Also on Friday, Snowden received a message through a “middle-man” claiming to represent the Hong Kong government that he would be able to leave without fear of arrest, but he questioned the reliability of that message.

    Well duh, everything’s done with a handshake and a wink. No paper trails please

    1. In Bangkok it’s with a handjob and a twink.

      1. One town’s very like another
        When your head’s down over your pieces, brother

  8. Journalism is becoming its own punchline.

  9. Sorkin: “See? I’m a good boy. I’m not the one causing all the trouble. I don’t throw my toys. I pick up my toys, just like Mommy tells me. Right, Mommy?”

    1. Yeas, Gallant. You are much more proper than Goofus.

      1. + 1 Timbertoe.

    2. I’m a good boy,
      Yes, I am!
      You need not sham,
      You know I am!

  10. Glenn Greenwald to tweet “Should the NYT editors & reporters who published classified information about false Iraq WMD claims be arrested?” at him.

    Jesus fuck… how many times do we have to go through this? That was Bush, this is Obama. How hard is it to understand these very clear differences?

    1. Yeah, Judith Miller was rewarded with a Fox News gig for reporting her false aluminum tubes story in the NY Times.

      Partisans have to reward partisans.

      1. Shorter shreek:
        ‘Hey! Look over there!’

        1. He’s like a walking tu quoque/red herring machine. I’m not sure at this point that he could pass a Turing Test, given that 99% of his responses can be boiled down to either/both fallacies.

          1. You’re a rethuglican or you hate kids.

            1. I don’t hate kids. I love them! They make the best monocle polishers, and their tiny little bodies enable them to repair the heavy machinery in my factories without any expensive downtime.

              1. Generic Stranger| 6.24.13 @ 7:21PM |#
                “I don’t hate kids. I love them!”

                I do too. Medium rare, please.

  11. The Times does finance?

    Only if it’s gender-neutral, enviro-conscious, minority-sensitive multicultural finance, baby!

    Capitalism’s like the training wheels guiding the bike to paradise. Obama’s riding the bike so they like the training wheels….for now.

  12. Almost arrest probably means handcuff s&m.

  13. And so many of you thought journalism had sunk to its very bottom during the elections. That pit is bottomless.

    1. That’s science!

    2. True. There are ways of licking the ground upon which Obozo strolled that even shreek hasn’t yet plumbed!

      1. And he’s totally out to prove you right about that. See below…

  14. OK, the fake IRS scandal is officially dead:

    http://www.boston.com/business…..story.html

    An internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press said that besides ”tea party,” lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination also included the terms ”Israel,” ”Progressive” and ”Occupy.” The document said an investigation into why specific terms were included was still underway.

    1. That dog just won’t wag.

      1. Even if they were also targeting progs and occutards, that would hardly make it ok.

        Unless you are a brain dead partisan hack, you don’t want them unfairly targeting anyone.

        1. Watergate took two years to do what it did to the Nixon administration. And everyone hated Nixon already.

    2. It’s been almost a month now, and they just figured out they “also” targeted lefty groups?

      Yeah, right, pull the other one.

    3. How does that mean the end of the scandal?

      The IRS is using it’s power against people because of their political positions. Finding out that the list of victims is longer than we previously thought actually kinda ups the ante here…a reasonable person would think.

      I am always tempted to rip into you Turdpolisher, but then I remember that you are mentally ill, so I hold back.

      No honor in besting a fool.

      1. It sucks to be fired from the IRS, I guess. But this is not going to touch the White House.

    4. So because they fucked everyone over it’s a fake scandal?

      Wtf?

      If anything it makes it worse. I heard the other day Howard Stern take that line of logic when he asserted it’s not the first time people get singled out for stuff and he proceeded to use a non-IRS example – though I forget what. I just remember thinking to myself, “that’s not the same thing jack ass!”

      And this is a guy who has beating the drum about running for office alongside Jesse Ventura.

      Meh. Still think he has a great show going. I pay Sirius for his show.

    5. OK, the fake IRS scandal is officially dead:

      And to think, it only took them a month to uncover that “document” that exonerates them. No employees coming out of the woodwork to defend themselves. No IRS brass coming out to defend their actions right away with cries of “fairness, look!” Nope. We get a “document” that shows up weeks later…and we’re expected to swallow it like we’re Marilyn Chambers and the IRS is John Holmes.

      Well fuck me, that’s an incredible series of coincidences.

      1. It was in the same folder as the birth certificate.

          1. If you’re Marilyn Chambers, shouldn’t that be a swallow take? 🙂

            1. IIRC, she did like getting her protein.

    6. Palin’s Buttplug| 6.24.13 @ 6:27PM |#
      “OK, the fake IRS scandal is officially dead:”

      OK, this is funny.
      Dipshit, are you old enough to remember the Nixon apologists? If not, you need to do some reading.
      Every week, sleazy partisans like your own damn self would point to some piece of crap press release and say: “See? It’s all over!”
      It’s even more humorous that you’ve tried to lick the various dog-shit piles off Obozo’s shoe several times already with the same bullshit.
      Keep it up, dipshit; we don’t mind the laughs.
      Oh, and go fuck your daddy.

    7. This is like when an all-white country club is accused of racism, and suddenly “finds” a black member, proving just how un-racist they are.

  15. “Almost arrest” means dronemurder. See, it’s almost like arresting someone to kill them remotely.

    1. And it saves the taxpayers money! Small government folk should love it!

      See, we just have not fully pondered the genius and good of Obamas agenda.

      1. Drone process saves money, time, and heartache. It also saves money and stress for the defendant and his family–no sitting for years, waiting for justice. Instead, justice comes from the skies at some random time.

        1. Perhaps it would benefit the O admin to replace Carney Doody with ProL.

        2. “We call this drone, the Nobel Peace Surprise.”

          1. Why don’t you gather all your friends, neighbors, and relatives together in some sort of celebration and we’ll deliver it to you.

            1. A wedding, perhaps?

              1. Yes! Perfect! And if you could do this new dance that is all the rage in the States it would help.

                It’s called The Furtive Movement and it’s just crackers!

        3. How long do you suppose it’ll be before the NSA invites some douche nozzle like Sorkin on a drone along, maybe even let the journo push the kill button.

          1. I bet Chris Matthews would get a real tingle up his leg from something like that.

  16. Silly reporters

    Bwahahhaaa! That there is funny, I don’t care who you are.

  17. Questions that are not fully settled: Is Snowden a whistle blower? Is Greenwald a journalist?

    Both came into their current roles with an ideological agenda, one definitely not shared by the majority of Americans. Discuss.

    1. Yes and yes. I do realize that you think “journalist” should have the same definition as “PR flack for the Obama administration”, but yes, Greenwald is a journalist. One of the few remaining journalists in existence. And Snowden’s actions are the very definition of whistleblowing, whether or not he came into it with an idealogical agenda.

      1. What a stupid loaded gun question. Greenwald has been one of the few journalists with balls. Not the type of balls you like, Tony, I understand but still…

      2. Well, journalists are supposed to objectively report facts. Greenwald is pretty rigorous, but it’s clear that he has an ideological agenda. Would he report facts that don’t fit his preferred narrative? Maybe it doesn’t matter. Your claim that he’s one of the few remaining journalists is nonsense, and clearly a sign that you define reporting as telling stories you like to hear.

        Snowden didn’t uncover any illegality that we know of. He lied when he swore not to disclose secrets. On the other hand, he did uncover something the American people probably had a moral right to know about. On the other other hand, he’s giving US secrets to foreign countries, which is certainly crossing a line.

        FTR I can’t seem to escape ambivalence on this matter, so you can save the usual accusations, if you don’t mind.

        1. Well, journalists are supposed to objectively report facts.

          False premise is false.

          Snowden didn’t uncover any illegality that we know of.

          Bullshit. He uncovered the most egregious violation of the 4th Amendment in history.

        2. Orwell once said that “if publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.” That applies here too, doesn’t it?

          Most “journalists” are nothing more than cowards and glorified PR flacks. Greenwald is a journalist.

        3. Tony:
          “On the other hand, he did uncover something the American people probably had a moral right to know about.”

          I thought you said that people who believe in moral systems were religious and, therefore, stupid. Is it different when you’re throwing the word around?

          If we have a “moral right” to know this, how does this fit in with your (apparently religious) moral system? Specifically, if it is illegal for us to find out something we have a “moral right” to know, how can we claim that rights are defined by government? It’s contradictory to believe that governments fabricate rights, and that we have a right to know something that it is also illegal for us to know.

          Yet, when people apply moral systems consistently and universally, you accuse them of subjective irrationality. How you can claim rational consistency while simultaneously holding multiple, opposing positions and viewpoints is beyond me.

          1. Intelligent people know that the world is complicated.

            1. And when honest debaters have the inconsistencies of their arguments pointed out, they amend their arguments or concede points. They don’t blame their irrational, inconsistent arguments on a complicated word and call it a day.

              The world is not so complicated that everyone who believes in morality is a fool except for you, or that government defines our rights by the laws and violates the same by the very same laws.

              This is where you people always go wrong. You argue against morality and rights outside of government, but its only a matter of time before you turn around and start envoking moral lectures and rights that the government violates in accordance with law. You don’t really hold these ideas as principles. They’re just flexible excuses for justifying whatever policy you like, and, in the future, you’ll gladly change and adopt a different one. So, today, morality is good. when it restrains the state, you’ll claim that morality is foolish. Today, the government violates our rights, and tomorrow, the government legalistically defines our rights, making the law always consistent with rights, by default.

              Intelligent people take that for what it is, and its nit rational, consistent argument. It’s just making flexible excuses for subjective preferences.

        4. Tony:
          “Would he report facts that don’t fit his preferred narrative?”

          Does this question only apply to specific journalists?

    2. Is Greenwald a journalist?

      I wasn’t aware that the 1st Amendment had been repealed and now one needs an imprimi potest and a nihil obstat before reporting events.

      1. Obviously, the Ministry of Information created Tony to fling shit at H&R.

      2. There’s always been a tension when it comes to even professional reporters learning classified info, and the first amendment doesn’t shield reporters from consequences for any and all disclosures.

        1. first amendment doesn’t shield reporters from consequences for any and all disclosures

          It does when the reporter discloses treasonous activities, but that’s beside the point. You asked if there were criteria one should met before being considered (by whom?) a journalist. Based on that mentality alone, in a sane and just world, you and your ilk should already be swinging from the gallows.

        2. Tony, I’m sure you cheered Bernstein and Woodward on though. Should there have been consequences then? I can’t keep up with all the sophistry anymore.

      3. I wasn’t aware that the 1st Amendment had been repealed and now one needs an imprimi potest and a nihil obstat before reporting events.

        Why not?

        Pretty soon we’ll need a permission slip from the govenment to work.

        Officially licensing journalists is only a small further step.

    3. Tony| 6.24.13 @ 7:00PM |#
      “Questions that are not fully settled: Is Snowden a whistle blower? Is Greenwald a journalist?”

      Shithead posted that. I didn’t paraphrase it or re-write it, or change it in any way; shithead just flat posted that!

      1. Another question not settled: Should we give a flying fuck about those two questions?

        I mean, I thought it was settled, but apparently not.

        1. Not even sure those are questions, rather than attempts at shithead sophistry to somehow claim shithead’s tired dogma has some validity.
          Straw-grasping is becoming a fad among Obozobots.

    4. I think you are making a deliberate attempt to deflect attention from the criminal behavior that has been revealed by attempting to smear the whistleblower.

      Goddamn you are transparent Tony.

    5. Both came into their current roles with an ideological agenda, one definitely not shared by the majority of Americans.

      They have angered Democrator! They must be punished!

  18. Even the most ardent liberals at HuffPo, and there actually are a few over there, are starting to waver on their principles here and defend the NSA.

    1. If they’re wavering, those were never principles. Just convenient beliefs.

      1. You’re right. My bad on the choice of words.

      2. You can have principles and waver. I realize this probably sounds like gobbledygook to most people here, but an active mind is one that changes from time to time.

        1. No, principles don’t “evolve”. What one says to a voting bloc to lock their votes down does.

          1. I would distinguish principles from dogmas.

            1. I can’t tell the difference between your principles and dog mess

              1. I have one simple, consistent principle: I like what I like.

            2. Tony| 6.24.13 @ 7:23PM |#
              “I would distinguish principles from dogmas.”

              Agreed, shithead. You have none of the former and nothing but the latter.

          2. Don’t you understand sloops? You’re just not pragmatic enough. You’re stuck in your outmoded “logic” and think that two plus two always equals four. Superior men like Tony realize that certain political exigencies require one to believe that sometimes two plus two equals five.

            1. Asshole is Asshole

            2. Fuck pragmatism and fuck Tony. He’s no better than the Bush-fellators that decried us when we didn’t want to give up our rights 5-13 years ago.

              He can kiss my fucking ass.

              Now, I’m off to Los Doyers-Gigantes. My kids are in black and orange, so wish me luck.

              1. Shouldn’t they be in maize and blue?

              2. Halloween isn’t for a few months, dude.

            3. I don’t know why they even bother pretending to have principles. They just like using government power to control people, and they come up with whatever contradictory principles and justifications they wish to entertain after the fact. It’s just a coping mechanism, to avoid the reality of the system they endorse.

              1. During the Clinton Administration the press came up with the ever popular euphemism ‘Triangulation’.

                1. My dad said it was just a fancy word for licking your finger and holding it up to see which way the wind blows.

        2. A 180 U-turn from rhetoric to deeds is not waivering, it’s lying.

        3. I think when a real world situation culls the principled from the big talkers it is called separating the wheat from the chaff.

          What you call changing one’s mind I call hypocrisy and partisan hackery.

  19. So, maybe a crazy question, but given the current administration’s broad reading of the powers in the AUMF regarding due process and that a potential sentence under the espionage act is death, could Obama consider actually assassinating Snowden?

    I think that this extreme hypothetical would be one of the biggest travesties in history, but given Obama’s behavior, is this even remotely possible under the guidelines to which he has adhered? I just kind of puked in my mouth thinking about it.

    Discuss.

    1. So, maybe a crazy question, but given the current administration’s broad reading of the powers in the AUMF regarding due process and that a potential sentence under the espionage act is death, could Obama consider actually assassinating Snowden?

      No way in hell the AUMF applies to American citizens wanted for espionage. And once an indictment came down, that took the “enemy combatant” designation off the table.

      So in answer to your question, I’d fully expect Obama to employ the FYTW exemption to the Fourth Amendment and drone this guy to death if given half a chance.

      1. “And once an indictment came down, that took the “enemy combatant” designation off the table.”

        Ah, good point. Thanks.

        1. But I’m no “Constitutional Scholar” like our current CinC.

          1. He clearly has a non-originalist reading of the US Constitution.

            1. At this point, what difference does it make?

    2. Additionally, Sorkin should be ashamed of himself as a journalist for suggesting this. Greenwald’s work over the last few years despite his own political preferences (rather liberal) is a shining example of how journalism should operate. People like Sorkin and Andrew Sullivan should be ashamed of themselves.

    3. With a drone, or some sort of unfortunate accident like what befell Michael Hastings?

  20. The ever so tolerant and liberal commenters over at the FluffHost are calling for Snowden to be dronebotted by their master and for everyone involved with Wikileaks to be sent to Guantanamo.

    I thought they wanted to close Guantanamo? They’re evolving into good little fascists right before our very eyes.

    1. It’s the moment in They Live when RRP and co. destroy the alien’s signal generator.

    2. I honestly and naively thought that Obama supporters would be aghast about this behavior. But the silence is deafening and I feel foolish again.

      1. DDP2| 6.24.13 @ 7:47PM |#
        “I honestly and naively thought that Obama supporters would be aghast about this behavior.”

        Obozo did it, they believe it, that settles it.

    3. Ugh. I made it just past the headline before seeing a call for national service, right from the site’s namesake/owner/etc.

      Hmmm… how about national service… as informants!

      It’s your duty as a patriotic Obamacan to inform on your neighbors and coworkers! Start them in high school…

      Plus, I bet you could put together some great data analysis crowd-sourcing. Setup a site that has people review (anonymized) blog posts, tweets, emails, skype calls, etc., and report if the discussions are problematic.

      1. We’ll call it the PanOpticon

    4. Progressives are even more tied to the Ancien R?gime than are “conservatives.” They’re not evolving into fascists, they’re revealing themselves as such.

  21. Sounds like some pretty serious smack to me ddue, For suire.

    http://www.Go-Anon.tk

  22. “Should the NYT editors & reporters who published classified information about false Iraq WMD claims be arrested?”

    Glenn Greenwald is completely missing the point, here.

    When the NYT editors & reporters published classified information about how the president’s Iraq WMD claims were false, Barack Obama wasn’t the president.

    These people aren’t mad at Greenwald becasue he broke any law. They’re mad at Greenwald becasue he broke the rule, and the rule is: “Anything you do that makes Barack Obama look bad is a crime against journalism”.

  23. And the worse Obama looks over this, the madder his fans in the press get.

    And, boy, do the Obama people look ridiculous whining and crying about China and Russia, today, or what?

    It was embarrassing to watch.

    It was like watching a quarterback throw a temper tantrum in a locker room interview after losing the Superbowl.

    It isn’t fair! Russia better hand him over, or I’m never gonna talk to Putin again! And the Chinese are always saying they want more cooperation? How come they didn’t just do what I told them to do?!

    Waaah! WaaaaAAaaaaaah!

    1. Ken Shultz| 6.24.13 @ 8:16PM |#
      “And the worse Obama looks over this, the madder his fans in the press get.”

      Or the more desperate:
      Palin’s Buttplug| 6.24.13 @ 6:27PM |#
      “OK, the fake IRS scandal is officially dead:”

      Nothing to see here; move along!

  24. I hope someone is keeping a list of all these assholes quotes for when there is a republican in office. Although they’ll find a way to justify the hypocrisy they’ll no doubt be engaging in. There’s certainly has to be some of these guys on record blasting the Bush wiretapping program. If I recall correctly that wasn’t even as extensive as it is now, or at least there wasn’t the knowledge at the time that it was.

  25. Ken Shultz| 6.24.13 @ 8:16PM |#
    “And, boy, do the Obama people look ridiculous whining and crying about China and Russia, today, or what?”

    I was laughing my ass off about this. I’m sure it made Putin’s day to see these weenies piss and moan like a bunch of kindergarteners – completely out of their league and flaunting it to the world.

    I would bet that certian levels in the Chinese government were wondering if the translation was correct – could it be that EVERY American politician lacks any clue about how political power between sovereign nations works?

  26. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t the New York Times itself once publish papers that had been declared secret by the government and that had been “wantonly leaked” while the war they discussed was still being fought? Didn’t the New York Times go to the Supreme Court to fend off government attempts to block publication? Funny, but I don’t recall the Times editors and reporters turning themselves in or volunteering for arrest for “wantonly” disclosing government secrets.

    1. The difference is that they hated Nixon then and now they love Obama.

  27. NSA has the shit on all these guys. What the fuck do you expect then to say?

    1. ‘them’

      1. NSA has them shit on all these guys.

        Makes much more sense.

  28. I’d almost piss on Sorkin is he were on fire.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.