Monday, July 29, 2013

Glenn Greenwald - Hypocrite Extraordinare

Not much hasn't been said about Glenn Greenwald lately. You might know him as the guy who helped Edward Snowden (who is as phony as a three dollar bill) "leak" information that the government was spying on us. Here's an FYI for you, Glenn. Americans have known since Watergate that the government spies on us. What you 'leaked' wasn't anything that we didn't already know. Alas, some say he's a hero. Some think he's a traitor. He's this, he's that. But personally, I think it's safe to say he's nothing more but a Grade A hypocrite.

Also, if you ask him a legitimate question, he gets really defensive.

First, let me state that, yes, of course as an American, you have the right to free speech. Hate speech is considered free speech. That's not what this is about. Mr. Greenwald is a civil rights lawyer by trade, which I find pretty hilarious due to one of his most prominent cases being that he defended Matthew Hale, a white supremacist who was found guilty of seeking out someone to murder a federal judge. You can read in depth on the case here. And not only is Greenwald's defense of Hale sickening in and of itself, the trouble he got himself into as his lawyer should really tell you just what kind of person he is.

Racial supremacy is, in my opinion, the height of fascism. As we know, fascism doesn't allow for civil rights for anyone but a certain group of people. How can Mr. Greenwald have the guts to pass himself off as the savoir of our rights as Americans, while defending someone who wants to wipe away and deny rights to entire groups of people? I'm sad to say that he's duped many people on the left into thinking he cares about them or anyone else.

I asked a question and it resorted to an insinuation that I apparently dislike the First Amendment. Pretty typical when you have someone backed into a corner they don't know how to get out of. And the link he sent me was a story about the ACLU defending neo-nazis on the grounds of free speech. Again, no one is denying anyone their free speech. My gripe is with the hypocritical nonsense he spews.

Hopefully this opens many people's eyes to the kind of person Greenwald truly is.


  1. You self righteousness is unbecoming and fairly idiotic. Are you suggesting only the.people you approve of are entitled to counsel?Who's the fascist now? And no progressive fourth grader would be dumb enough to question a lawyer for representing an unpopular cause or person. Most of your most important first amendment cases come from unpopular causes and lawyers who disregarded the people who whined about.

    1. Daring not to question doesn't get us far in life. I'm sorry you believe we should back down and keep quiet. It's clear Greenwald has people brainwashed.

  2. Everyone deserves a fair trial. Sure, the system is not perfect, but this is actually a sign of Greenwald's humanity or at least his strong belief in fair trials. I would never defend the guy and I know what you mean, but our system is the way it is for a reason.

  3. Meg,

    If you're going to carry water for the Obama administration, Google, the rest of Big Data, and the oligarchs, you should get paid really well.

    Snowden worked for Booz Allen Hamilton who gets 99% of their revenue from the federal government.

    The Carlysle Group is a majority owner Booz Allen Hamilton.

    They're controlled by Saudi princes, the Bush family, and the rest of the oligarchs. We've essentially outsourced national security to them.

    1. You've completely missed the point of this post.

    2. Or just maybe, not fitting at all neatly into the "defender and companion of American Nazis" meme that appears to be foremost in your own processing of this issue -- you could be the one who's gotten "punked" by the sensationalist, pack-journalism public shaming of the whistle blowers.

      This essay from a Stockholm journalism professor might give you a different take on what's important and what kind of set-your-hair-on-fire public scandals are far more likely to be manufactured disinformation:

      Or going back a little farther, here are the first four paragraphs of another essay, which talks about why it is so many people get *punked* by sensational (but simplistic, 2-dimensional, black-and-white) stories in the media:

      Chris Hedges....

      ...I looked at the array of mechanisms used to divert us from confronting the economic, political and moral collapse around us. I examined the fantasy that if we draw on our inner resources and strengths, if we realize that we are truly exceptional, we can have everything we desire.

      The childish idea that we can always prevail, that reality is never an impediment to what we want, is the central motif of illusion peddled on popular talk shows, by the Christian Right, by Hollywood, in corporate retreats, by the news industry and by self-help gurus. Reality can always be overcome. The future will always be glorious. And held out to keep us amused and entertained are spectacles and celebrities who have become idealized versions of ourselves and who, we are assured, we can all one day become.

      The cultural embrace of illusion, and the celebrity culture that has risen up around it, have accompanied the awful hollowing out of the state. We have shifted from a culture of production to a culture of consumption. We have been sold a system of casino capitalism, with its complicated and unregulated deals of turning debt into magical assets, to create fictional wealth for us and vast wealth for our elite. We have internalized the awful ethic of corporatism -- one built around the cult of the self and consumption as an inner compulsion -- to believe that living is about our own advancement and our own happiness at the expense of others. Corporations, behind the smoke screen, have ruthlessly dismantled and destroyed our manufacturing base and impoverished our working class. The free market became our god and government was taken hostage by corporations, the same corporations that entice us daily with illusions though the mass media, the entertainment industry and popular culture.

      The more we sever ourselves from a literate, print-based world, a world of complexity and nuance, a world of ideas, for one informed by comforting, reassuring images, fantasies, slogans and a celebration of violence the more we implode. We ask, like the wrestling fans or those who confuse love with pornography, to be fed lies. We demand lies. The skillfully manufactured images and slogans that flood the airwaves and infect our political discourse mask reality. And we do not protest. The lonely Cassandras who speak the truth about our misguided imperial wars, the global economic meltdown and the imminent danger of multiple pollutions that are destroying the eco-system that sustains the human species, are drowned out by arenas full of fans chanting "Slut! Slut! Slut!" or television audiences chanting "Jer-ry! Jer-ry! Jer-ry!" The worse reality becomes, the less a beleaguered population wants to hear about it and the more it distracts itself with squalid pseudo-events of celebrity breakdowns, gossip and trivia.

  4. I've seen some very well reasoned arguments made by various bloggers at this site. Sorry Meg, but yours doesn't qualify as one of them. It's really quite pathetic.

  5. Speaking of phonies, one unintended consequence of the Snowden leaks has been the smoking-out of authoritarians in both political parties. In that alone he rendered a great public service.

  6. Hale certainly is NAZI pond scum.

    Greenwald, however, is anything but and you shame yourself with your attempt to marry Greenwald with a client.

    Greenwald is a civil liberties attorney who deeply believes in due process and the Bill of Rights.

    Not sure if you proposing making a finding of fact outside of a court of law on whether Hale is a neo-NAZI POS (not difficult to make), and then determining on that basis if Hale retains the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel and trial, based on this finding.

    I would say this would be mob justice.

    By the way, the specifics of what Greenwald reported RE Snowden were not known, hence the frenzied desire by so many to prosecute Snowden after Greenwald's series in The Guardian, and the pathetic calls that Snowden should spend the rest of his life in a cell 23/hours a day, or he must be a phony.

    Somehow, I fail to see the humanism in this proposal.

    I am curious if you apply the same logic you use to slime Greenwald to Alan Dershowitz' defense of O.J. Is Dershowitz a hypocrite extraordinaire, by your logic?

    How about F. Lee Bailey and his defense of Captain Medina for the My Lai Massacre, or of Albert DeSalvo?

    Your argument seems to be if someone is accused of an infamous crime, he deserves a right to counsel as long as no attorney actually provides counsel.

    Perhaps you will consider the opening statement before the International Military Tribunal, November 21, 1945, at Nuremberg by Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States: "That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason."

    How does Justice Jackson fare in history's eye, in your view?

    There are a lot of hit pieces against Greenwald; yours is but one.

  7. I'm really sad to see Cap's missed the point on this one.

    "Weapons of Mass Distraction" isn't just a clever pun, it's a psy ops tool for using mass media to divert attention away form larger issues.

    Larger issue ----> Gun Control / "Stand Your Ground" ALEC laws

    Distractions... (the more the better) : Georgie Zimmerman "saves" family in rollover vehicle, Trayvon had "burglar tools" in his possession at some point in his life (so of course he was....

    Larger Issue ----> This country's so obsessed with professional sports and the multi-millionaire star athletes who compete in the publicly-funded stadiums, nothing about the sporting establishment can be criticized or discussed, at length, in detail, with any sort of critical eye.

    Distraction : Ryan Braun LIED. (But about what, what the heck is he exactly guilty of (?), we still don't know.) The issue can only be framed in terms of the guilt or innocence of one individual, so forget about digging for nuance, or the big picture.

    Larger Issue----> It's not just official spooks, privatized contracted spooks are spying on everybody

    Distractions : Snowden and Greenwald were libertarians, or at some point said some libertariany things. Snowden had a (hot!) stripper girlfriend he left behind...

    Distractions : Greenwald...

    1. Capper didn't write it. I did and I stand by everything I said in it.

  8. Capper, do us all a favor and remove this blog before the knuckleheads over at badgerblogger get wind of it.

    I mean, do we really need to furnish them with fodder that shows just how hysterically unreasonable some on the left can be?

    1. How am I being unreasonable by calling out someone who claims to be a civil rights attorney while defending those who don't believe in civil rights? I mean honestly, the fact that my point has been lost on so many people either means I wasn't as thorough in my writing as I thought I was, or there are some mighty idiotic people who walk this earth. All your comment proves is the type of hold egomaniacs like Greenwald have on people. My voice is the voice of reason on this topic, not you.

    2. And if Dorwin wants to come at me because of this, then I hope he brings it on. I'm not afraid of him or anyone else.

    3. Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
      Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
      The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
      The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
      The best lack all conviction, while the worst
      Are full of passionate intensity.

      Surely some revelation is at hand;
      Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

      Wm. Butler Yeats

  9. Meg-your argument is simplistic and lacks maturity. However I am glad you were able to express the point, although I disagree with you.

    We would be acting in the same manner as Walker and his DOA if we silenced those whose ideas we opposed and only observed the rights (such as representation of counsel) of people we liked, or did what we wanted, or belonged to a certain class (or race, religion, or political party...)Seems we are on dubious ground already. We need to be as dutiful in the protection of the rights of those we may disagree with as we are protective of those who we agree. Otherwise we may become our own worst enemies and hypocrites as well.

  10. C'mon Meg, think a little. One who "doesn't believe in civil rights" still has civil rights under the constitution and the right to legal representation; is that really so difficult to understand? Also, plenty was revealed in the Snowden leak that we didn't know. The fascism/racial superiority comments are a confused mess as well.

  11. I'm a little confused as to whether Greenwald is guilty of "feigning faux outrage" or merely feigning outrage, if the former, he is a very clever man indeed.

  12. Congratulations Meg,

    This is easily the most ignorant piece I have ever read on Cog Dis.

    What does Greenwald's prior client list have to do with his defense of Civil Rights? Does defending this one client negate all the excellent work he has done exposing the growing Security State for the last 10 years?

    Finally, you need to understand true civil rights are universal. Any right you would deny even the worst among us you do not deserve yourself.

    1. Exactly. Meg sounds as bad as the Walker supporters who eve Pom- poms for their people like politics and opinions are some kind of sporting event.

      Maybe Greeneald believes all people are worthy of a right to counsel, and hates government secrecy. It's called having consistency and values, and if more Dems had the same, they'd never lose again.

    2. You either lack the comprehension necessary for understanding my point, or something, I'm not sure. Not at one time did I EVER say Hale didn't deserve his right to a fair trial. My question of Greenwald is how he can consider himself a civil rights guru while defending people who don't believe in civil rights for all. That's it. That was my point. Good god. I can't believe how this evolved. Or maybe it's a good thing. Thanks for the attention I guess?

    3. Rosa Luxemburg said it most famously,

      "Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently."

      What is it about that concept that causes you to keep insisting people who hold odd, limited, even absurd opinions have no right to express them publicly?

      ...A suggestion -- go back to this thread in a month. Fo'-get about it for a while.

      Have a good one.

  13. This posting is off the rails.

    The defenses are even worse as they double down.

    Not at one time did I EVER say Hale didn't deserve his right to a fair trial. My question of Greenwald is how he can consider himself a civil rights guru while defending people who don't believe in civil rights for all. That's it. That was my point.

    That is the problem. Apparently you don't see it that way. I would be happy to defend your right to publicly state your position on this no matter how odious and ill reasoned (which you don't apparently realize) it is. I suppose that makes me just like Glenn Greenwald.

    Here is a little thought game. Substitute any crime and any lawyer practicing in that area.
    Then state: How can anyone defending Dennis Kozlowski or Bernie Madoff justify doing so when they are....

  14. Meg, the guy you link to over at democraticunderground is quite the assclown. He states:

    "That's right--Glenn Greenwald, self-proclaimed civil rights lawyer, violated the civil right of witnesses. The New York Bar later wrote a clarifying opinion on the ethics of said taping, referencing this case"

    Well, when you click on the link and read the opinion you'll discover that in fact there is no reference to the case, and how could there be? ... the opinion was written before the case!!

    That you would choose to use some unidentifiable asshole's idiotic and deceitful claims about Greenwald to fuel your hatred towards him speaks volumes about your character.

    Meg Moen - Immoral Moron

  15. I can't believe Capper lets this crap on an otherwise excellent blog.

  16. Great blog, keep up the good work. Of course your words will fall on some deaf ears. With all of the things going on with Snowden, Russia and a few things about Glenn for example he is gay and we all know what Russia thinks of gays and luckily Snowden isn't, does not take much of anything else to see through the glass of Glenn Greenwald. People do need to speak up more on this side of Greenwald because there are a lot of followers out there who will blindly follow some one because they stood up to "the man". They forget to question things while questioning their own government. Glenn is a wolf in sheeps clothing and Snowden is just a dumb ass in idiot clothing.

  17. Glenn Greenwald, self-proclaimed civil rights lawyer, violated the civil right of witnesses. The New York Bar later wrote a clarifying opinion on the ethics of said taping, referencing this case--

  18. Great admirer of Glenn's work, and hoping that the joint emdia venture with Scahill, and funded by Ebay founder will mean we get to see lots more of him.