Is Glenn Greenwald a Terrorist?

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Sun Aug 18, 2013, 10:18 PM - Edit history (3)

Is receiving and publishing NSA docs terrorism?

I'll start. Seems kind of plainly not terrorism.

But there seems to be some confusion as to whether laws ostensibly limited to interdicting terrorists in transit are appropriately used to investigate leaks to a British newspaper.

In my naivete, I had assumed that anti-terrorism laws that grant extraordinary police powers were supposed to be for terrorism, not sweeping expansions of police power for all purposes.

I seem to recall that narrowness of use and intent being cited each time some new expansion of executive power was granted 'to fight terror.'

Ironically, that same supposed narrowness of use and intent is cited today in justifying the very programs being leaked about... with those leaks being investigated using laws that were supposed to be similarly limited.

A snake swallowing its tail.

[Rex]

1. I was told it is all hype so how can he be a terrorist?

nt.

[Luminous Animal]

2. His name is spelled Glenn.

[Cali_Democrat]

5. Yup

Never forget that other 'n'

[Luminous Animal]

6. Presumably, we are not idiots.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. Glen vs Glenn

Not a big deal IMO as long as we know who the OP is talking about.

And I think we do.

[Luminous Animal]

10. The man's name has two ens. What is the big deal about pointing that out.

[Cali_Democrat]

11. It's inane

who cares.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. No

Silly question.

[quinnox]

4. I object to your headline

I know it is unintended, but that is very inflammatory and flame-bait worthy.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. To this point ...

I have not seen any evidence to suggest that he is a terrorist.

[woolldog]

8. Yes.

He's provided aid and comfort to the enemy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. The people of the world are the "enemy"?

[DJ13]

19. To the 1% the other 99% are (potential) terrorists

[dairydog91]

18. And since "the enemy" is an amorphous, ill-defined group of dirty furriners...

We can be at war forever! National Security Uber Alles!

[HooptieWagon]

12. Apparrently so.

Since exposing unconstitutional acts and abuses of power threaten the continued funding and profits of the Surveillence State, any enemy of the SS is now a terrorist.

Threatening Journalists, kill lists, drone attacks on civilians,indefinite detentions, unrestricted spying on American citizens....not the change we were voting for.

[baldguy]

13. You assume that the people that want to attack & destroy this country can't read.

[Egnever]

15. Terrorist? nah

Someone likely in possession of stolen classified documents..You bet!

[Quantess]

16. jury results

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

I think this headline is over the top and disruptive, even if the OP has good intentions.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Aug 19, 2013, 03:10 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Tough call, but this is leaning toward tongue-in-cheek flamebait. I sense the OP's frustration, though. We need to tone down the inflammatory stuff.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: oh, geeeeeezzzzzzz
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Whoever alerted on this: welcome to the internet.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Just an honest opinion. Not rude or offensive,
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Is this what DU has lowered itself too?