Rachel Maddow: "Journalism is NOT terrorism." She is supporting Greenwald. "It's an outrage."

[chimpymustgo]

Last edited Tue Aug 20, 2013, 09:19 AM - Edit history (1)

Very skeptical of the US given "advance notice" that Miranda was going to be detained - and letting it go ahead.

Paraphrase: If the US wants to convince the world that Greenwald and Poitrus are wrong about govt over-rearch - then putting journalists through interrogation, letting our supposed ALLIES detain them - is an outrage.

~~~~~~

Go Rachel. This is a defining issue. Are you on the right side or the wrong side? Rachel is on the RIGHT SIDE.

View profile
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow/52797608#52797608

Edited to add video. Thanks, flpoljunkie for posting it!

[Harmony Blue]

1. The tide is turning

and this issue isn't going away anytime soon.

[chimpymustgo]

4. This is a defining civil rights issue of our time. Are you for civil rights for blacks, for gays?

Are you for civil liberties for everyone?

Where do you stand?

[Harmony Blue]

9. I support 100% civil rights and civil liberties

I am just trying to understand different points of view of why some are content with the narrative that the powers of our country are painting about the NSA spy program as harmless. I am perplexed...

[riderinthestorm]

11. Oh doncha know it because its OLD!!111! From Bush days and we KNEW about it

all along.... so that makes it all okay.

[backscatter712]

61. Yet Snowden and Manning need to be drawn and quartered because they hurt national security!

Isn't doublethink fun?

[Warpy]

86. Oh, yeah, we suspected all this stuff

These brave people just confirmed it for us.

Some of us didn't want it confirmed, I suppose, it broke them out of their "it can't happen here" fog of jingoistic self righteousness.

[tazkcmo]

24. Because it's not really spying.

It's just meta-data and that's all. Can't do anything with it, just save it even though there is nothing you can do with it. And our Democratic administration would never lie or deceive us. Oh, and the data that they can't really use that they save has stopped LOTS of terrorist attacks. Or maybe none. It's classified.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. You need to keep up

The it's just metadata is a zombie talking point anymore.

[Fawke Em]

59. I think that person was being sarcastic.

Re-read that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. It is so easy to miss it these days

[JDPriestly]

40. You can do a lot with metadata. A good mathematician teamed with a good lawyer can

do incredible things with metadata. It is spying.

[magical thyme]

68. the sarcasm wasn't dripping in red, but I believe it was there ;) nt

[dennis4868]

77. Yes...

I treasure my metadata...govt needs to keep their damn hands off my meta data...whatever meta data is.....but it's my right to have something kept private that is basically useless to me.

[sabrina 1]

96. But you don't own your meta data, didn't you hear about that? Your meta data belongs

to all the Corporations you do business with. NONE of it belongs to you!!! That is the excuse they came up with.

Which would mean that people never owned their own records going all the way back to the middle ages. Their doctors, lawyers, schools, OWNED their records and could do with them whatever they wanted. Didn't you know that?

I know I didn't and I don't believe it either. I just took MY records out of the hands of Verizon now that I know what they are doing with them. They told me they did not hand them over to the Government without my permission. I said I know you did and don't really want to discuss it.

So I guess they are my records after all since I was able to end the Corporation's 'ownership' of them and would have done so long ago if I had known what they were up to.

[dennis4868]

107. it was actually a supreme court case

[sabrina 1]

110. So was Bush V Gore and Citizen's United where Corporations became people and a loser

became a winner.

My data belongs to me no matter what the SC says and I have taken it out of the hands of Verizon once I found out what they were doing it. If it wasn't mine, I guess I couldn't that.

[dennis4868]

116. Okay...

go and guard your metadata....hahaha! They are coming for it....

[xfundy]

104. Please, answer the question.

[Douglas Carpenter]

2. knr

[NuclearDem]

3. That damn Paulbot.

[leftstreet]

5. Black Helicopter Leftess! n/t

[burnodo]

44. LOL

[PSPS]

6. But the swooners all swear he deserved it because Greenwald is a hack or crook or something!!11!1!!

[RC]

14. And Snowden's ex girl friend is a pole dancer.

That makes everything worse.

[tazkcmo]

25. Gasp!

She dances with Poles? I'm horrified! Weren't they commies?

[RC]

27. How will we ever erase that image from our brains, ya know?

On second thought, how do we know they were poles? How do we know they weren't Hungarians, or Germans, or something?

[tblue]

56. Dances With Poles

Kevin Costner's next movie.

[Aerows]

65. It was the boxes in the garage

and the fact that he didn't stop to pet the neighbor's dog is what did it for me.

[DirkGently]

19. I'm enjoying "didn't pay his bar fees" currently

playing elsewhere on the site.

They're positively turgid over the concept of saying his license "was supend(gasp)ed!"

Over, um, stopping his practice and not paying fees.

[Demo_Chris]

7. Maddow is an UNSerious, Libertarian, racist, Republican, Paulbot, who never loved him...

Under the bus with her!!!!

[East Coast Pirate]

18. Run, Rachel, run!

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. It's crowded down here

[Scuba]

22. Just wait, there'll be a rumor she's a **lesbian**!!!!!!!

That'll finish her!

[Demo_Chris]

23. Say it aint so!!! nt

[Ravens.Ransom]

33. And I hear she drinks

She'll never live that down.

[cui bono]

39. She makes cocktails on her show! Clearly she is not to be taken seriously. n/t

[Bonobo]

50. You forgot to mention that she fears black helicopters.

Or here, the "intellectual" version: It is all a stunt to see that Obama suffers a political loss...or something.

[sabrina 1]

8. Good for her. Some things are more important than party politics and it's sad that there those

who just can't grasp how important an issue this is to the American people.

Even during the Bush years there WERE Republicans who were speaking out and trying to stop this rolling train started by Bush/Cheney. Many of them had to retire from public service for their efforts, and we should not forget that several of the Whistle Blowers, like Drake and Binney were Republicans.

Obama just chose one of those Republicans who while a loyal Republican and Bush supporter, found that he could not support the frightening abuse of power that he was witnessing, James Comey.

Even for Ashcroft, there was a line that could not be crossed, and he had one moment of conscience when it came to these policies.

This is a unifying issue. People I used to fight with over everything, are in agreement over this and are not dishonest enough to blame only on Democrats, they acknowledge that Bush scared them on these issues.

Anger is growing around the world at the US over this issue. I would want to be on the right side of history if I were an elected official today.

[rhett o rick]

99. I honestly think the intelligence agency cabal is bigger than the President.

It's possible that we've had a silent coup d'etat. Just sayin.



Sorry if this overloads a certain Canadian's anti-CT circuits.

[sabrina 1]

111. I wouldn't worry what a few people who dither around DU with not much to contribute

think about anything. But I agree with you, and so do more and more people. These orgs like the NSA and the CIA and the FBI and all the others we have, have been given far, far too much power and money and yes, it may be too late to reign them in at this point.

[rhett o rick]

112. I dont pay mind to those that S-lither about DU trying to PPR anyone that remotely

can be called CT.

[sabrina 1]

115. Lol, me neither.

[riderinthestorm]

10. Rachel is obviously a "bad journalist" for not letting all the "facts" come out yet

about this incident.

And she's a Paulbot.... And a racist... And against Obama... Did I mention she has no "facts".... or that she's believing the "hype"....

[felix_numinous]

12. K&R!!!!!!

A Walter Cronkite moment?

[chimpymustgo]

43. Wouldn't that be great? Maybe Rachel will help some of the blind see the error of their ways.

[questionseverything]

54. yes when you have lost rachel

you have lost the country

she probably put her career up for grabs last night

[WorseBeforeBetter]

13. The Pauls got to her!

[neverforget]

15. Lies! All Lies! Rand got to her! She has boxes in her garage!

[DeSwiss]

31. ''She has boxes in her garage!''

- Those are all old liquor bottle boxes! I swear!

[QC]

16. Rachel Maddow never really loved him!

[NealK]

17. And under the bus she goes!

It has become an awfully crowded place down there, that bus needs to be replaced.

[morningfog]

20. Regardless of how you feel about Greenwald,

this was a stunning and offensive act. Anti-terrorism laws were uses to their fullest against at most, someone carrying documents that have been already widely distributed. Rachel gets it. Anyone who defends had lost all credibility and perspective.

[mindwalker_i]

21. Damn, now Obama's going to kill another kitten

Every time you say spying, drone killings, freedom of the press and/or whistleblowers...

[AppetiteForApathy]

26. I respectfully disagree with Rachel's take on what happened.

But I love her work and understand where she's coming from.

She's one of our greatest assets in the media, so throwing her under the bus over this would be a mistake.

[blkmusclmachine]

28. +1.

Only deeply corrupted Gov't's oppose free speech/free thought/free association.

[JDPriestly]

42. Face it. Our NSA and CIA got caught with their hands in the cookie jars of the world.

They act like they are five and mommy just caught them in the act. They are really, really mad and going to throw a big, big tantrum all over the airports of the world. What a bunch.

[Little Star]

48. +1

[chimpymustgo]

97. Why such hamfisted reponses? Are they panicking, pissed off, stupid - all of the above?

[JDPriestly]

100. All plus proud and dependent on the program for their livelihoods.

I think that Obama again does not like to say no to people.

That's our problem. He is a great guy, but he is too much of a people-pleaser. It is time to tone down and cut back on the war on terrorism. It should not be completely discontinued. We have had terrorism at least since the 1970s maybe 1960s. But we need to focus our resources on solving other problems.

[chimpymustgo]

101. Obama doesn't seem to have a problem sayind no to his BASE.

[JDPriestly]

114. True. We need to organize as Progressive Democrats -- a the grassroots level.

[DeSwiss]

29. Ouch!

- That's gonna leave a mark.

K&R

[midnight]

30. K&R

[nashville_brook]

32. an outrage indeed. it's time for the party to get on the right side of this.

beyond time, actually.

[polynomial]

34. Go for it

Wiki says Journalism is reporting in newspapers, radio, or cable/satellite. It really is funny to me knowing a huge chunk of Fox news is owned by the Arab Bin Laden family. Really cool to know that Arab family is very connected to the most celebrated terrorist America ever sought after.

You who Rachel remember that fella, one of the good fellas huh.

But of course, Osama Bin Laden killed a while back for orchestrating the most spectacular terrorist plot ever conceived on American soil, likely the Plame game with the help of Journalist. Or published video, and journalist written copies of treats to Americans for years.

For all we know very rich Arab extremist have holding secretly through blind trusts or other secret off shore Cayman Island listings. I my last reading the Arabs had hundreds of off shore locations listed next door to Romney’s address, and Bush Cheney “Halibut” connections.

America is waiting for the next MSNBC fatwa, or Imam jihad journalist report by Rachael.

[Aerows]

67. What is this?

I don't even ...

[Rex]

35. We have a second bus coming by...can we pencil you in for a 8am

'get under the bus'? Thanks.

[ljm2002]

38. Well at least one mainstream journalist gets it...

...unlike some of the others in the MSNBC lineup.

K&R

[ut oh]

41. Awesome! eom..

[burnodo]

45. The usual suspects are conspicuously absent from this thread

no talking points against Rachel yet, I guess

[Enthusiast]

49. Their strategy is to ignore it

in hopes that it will go away.

[tblue]

57. I guess Rachel is a bridge too far

for them. Can't touch this.

[backscatter712]

62. They're still putting the new batch through focus group testing.

And since in the meantime, they're trying to make this thread sink, I'll give it a K&R!

[flpoljunkie]

46. Link to the video: 'Journalism is not terrorism'

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow/52797608#52797608

[chimpymustgo]

52. Thanks for posting the video!

[morningfog]

47. Knee jerks defend every government action, without thinking.

They suspend their critical thought and go through contorted mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible.

As this gets worse, and it most surely will, you can count on blind defenders making asses out of themselves as they support authoritarian overreaches.

[WillyT]

53. HUGE K & R !!!

[Cryptoad]

55. Soooooo

terrorism can not be conducted in journalism clothing?

Bridges for Sale!

[Civilization2]

63. Yes, Rachel is clearly a terrorist!

Anyone who says mean things about the corporate-military government is a terrorist!

And terrorists have NO RIGHTS, no right to privacy, no right to a trial, no right to live, just drone murder 'em!

[Cryptoad]

71. why you think that?

[Civilization2]

91. The corporate-military kills "terrorists" all the time, using drones to murder them, right?

"terrorism can not be conducted in journalism clothing?"

As soon as we label anyone a "terrorist" or an "enemy combatant", or whatever new boogeyman label pushes your buttons, then laws no longer apply right? Collateral damage is inconsequential, and really nothing to worry about,. right?

The war-OF-terror make things so easy,. .

[Aerows]

69. I've seen plenty of wrong headed statements on DU

but implying that Rachel Maddow is a terrorist is about as wrong headed as they come.

[Cryptoad]

72. I have seen plenty of posters who

can not read critically,,,but

I never implied she is/was/or going to be a terrorist......geez,,,,
How funny!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

75. internet posters can be terrorists, but just by posting on the internet you are not a terrorist. nt

[Cryptoad]

76. I didnt ask

if all journalist are terrorist.


Reading is critical skill!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

80. so is comprehension. i used an analogy to explain what rachel said

however, clearly you have your own crazy agenda that i do not need to indulge further.

she said "journalism is not terrorism" not "journalists can never be terrorists". implying greenwalds partner was detained on the basis of his journalistic work, not on the basis of genuinely being a terrorist.

comprehension is key!!!

[Cryptoad]

81. Oh,,, i understand what you wrote

and what she said and both are a fallacy. If a journalist can be a terrorist then journalism can surely be terrorism.

His "partner" was detained and search because they have professed to have stolen documents.

btw,,,,,Charges soon to come as soon as the evidence is decrypted

This aint Rocket surgery!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

92. no journalism cannot be terrorism. some surgeons can be terrorists, but medicine is not terrorism.

again, comprehension is still key!

[Cryptoad]

98. again,,,

if a surgeon can be a terrorist then practicing medicine can be terrorism.

yes indeed comprehension is key,,,, but I Logic is even more important!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

109. i think to have logic you need to be at the very least capable of

separating a profession from a member of that group of professionals

what she said exactly is that journalism is not terrorism. which it is not, since both journalism and terrorism have very different definitions and no part of these definitions overlap

[Bluenorthwest]

58. And this might redeem Rachel in my eyes. I know that for me, the homophobic streak in the

Geenwald critics, going back years prior to the Snowden affair and continuing to this day really set my view on who I stand with. Not one thread about this subject passes without the homophobic lexicon and insinuations. The tactics are so foul and hateful that anything promoted with those tactics has to be corruption itself.

[Aerows]

70. +1 n/t

[The Link]

84. The homophobic undertones have been evident to me since early on.

[Jesus Malverde]

60. Is she still insisting snowden prove his self

In a national security court? Pretty sure she was on the turn yourself in bandwagon.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. It's 'prove himself'. And do you have any support for your assertion as to Maddow's position?

Pretty sure is not sufficient.

[Harmony Blue]

66. Points of view change over time

when I was telling people Snowden was a hero a lot of people were mocking me and accusing me of being a traitor to my country. Now? More people are starting to realize Snowden is a hero and important whistleblower not only in U.S. history but history of humanity.

[frylock]

78. sadly, it often takes an event like this..

an event that would have a direct effect on someone like Maddow before an epiphany is reached.

[DLevine]

73. We should all be outraged. nt

[NorthCarolina]

79. Some are conspicuously absent from this thread. Curious.

They're all over the post about Kucinich (for instance) declaring the NSA spying an overreach with their ad hominem attacks, and yet they leave this one untouched. Does that seem a bit curious to anyone besides me? What is their tactic here? Both Kucinich and Maddow are conveying a similar message and yet....nada for the Maddow thread. Why the apparent pass for Maddow? Surely this must be under their craw as much, if not more so, than DK, so what gives?

[JEB]

82. The silence from some quarters is deafening.

Thank you Rachel for stating what should be obvious, but nobody else on the TV is saying.

[libdem4life]

83. A brilliant, "uppity" woman with a national tv show who just happens to be a lesbian.

Yes, indeed and I doubt she's going anywhere else soon. You can bet the LGBT "code words" being bandied around were not missed. She will continue to "chap some hides", to be sure. Go Rachel!

[uhnope]

85. Maddow appreciates the words you put into her mouth, I'm sure. nt

[myrna minx]

87. K&R n/t

[dawg]

88. I applaud Rachel for this.

Sadly, I suspect it is just a momentary burst of outrage that will pass as quickly as it came. MSNBC has clearly demonstrated that you have to go along to get along if you want to hang around on *their* payroll. Ratings be damned - they have no compunction at all about giving you the axe if you buck the powers that be.

[Jasana]

89. Rachael gets it.

How many ways can one say "Journalism is not terrorism" before it sinks through the thick heads? You may or may not agree with the NSA (personally, I don't) but defining people you just don't like as terrorists is a moral outrage.

This happened in Britain so I'd say to the British people, you have a pretty big problem you might want to look into there. The US government knew it was going to happen and no one in the administration had the good sense to inform the Brits that journalism is not terrorism. I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate it was because they were feeling vindicative and wanted to send Greenwald a message.

[kelliekat44]

90. Why do many refer to al-Jazeera journalists as terrorists?

Being a journalist also doesn't give one a license to ruin people's lives.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

93. actually if the people did something worth exposing it does give a journalist

the right to "ruin their lives"

[NuclearDem]

105. "People" call AJ journalists terrorists because that's how Bushco wanted them portrayed.

Because they actually spoke out against Iraq and covered Afghanistan on the ground.

[LeftyMom]

113. Because those people are stupid and uninformed. Next question?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

94. Good on Rachel!! K&R

[warrprayer]

95. I love Rachel!

She finally said "enough"!

[Cleita]

102. She might also be concerned that her partner could

be harassed because of some of the controversial subjects she sometimes airs. All who are journalists, whether straight up reporters or pundits or left leaning opinion TV host should be concerned that family members could be treated like criminals as well.

[chimpymustgo]

103. Very good point. Clearly that spectre has been raised.

[xfundy]

106. It IS possible for "journalists" to be, or act in,

a terrorist fashion. Fox "news" is packed with them, as is, of course, RW talk radio.

Terrorism = making people afraid and keeping them afraid, making them distrust each other, keeping them fearful, creating "enemies," making them distrust government and media, warning them to arm themselves, making them believe violence is an answer against a real or imagined "foe" and/or an "other" they'd previously trusted and/or paid little notice towards previously. Terrorist tactics include convincing their targets not to trust their own families.

Can't think of any political party that does that. Hmmm.

[DirkGently]

108. Who knew that would be a controversial statement

... around here?



Zowie. Truth is just like a bomb or a bullet, apparently.