Time Reporter "Can't Wait" To Justify Drone Strike On Julian Assange 490
First time accepted submitter Tuck News writes "A reporter for TIME Magazine sparked a Twitter war when he said that he 'can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange'. Michael Grunwald deleted his tweet after a follower argued that it would only encourage Assange supporters.Grunwald's employer distanced itself from the tweet, saying 'Michael Grunwald posted an offensive tweet from his personal Twitter account that is in no way representative of TIME's views.'"
How is that legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Justifying a murder, or in this case glorifying murder by hoping to write a justification for it, must be hate speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How is that legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really hate speech. Obama has use drone strikes against individuals, so really all the tweet was doing is drawing attention to our president indiscriminately murdering individuals without a warrant or like means. The Internet would be a much better place if we had sarcasm tags. I think that was the reporters intent.
"I think that was the reporters intent."
Based on what, exactly? The asshole not only posted his opinion but defended it until he got so lambasted that he started posting retractions. Did you even read TFA (or anything else about Grunwald for that matter), or are you just blowing smoke out your ass? (obviously the latter I'm just giving you the chance to respond).
Not only was it really and truly hate speech..it was supporting what amounts to murder and the strong support of 'the reporter' in the defense of said murder.
Re:How is that legal? (Score:5, Informative)
Not really hate speech. Obama has use drone strikes against individuals, so really all the tweet was doing is drawing attention to our president indiscriminately murdering individuals without a warrant or like means. The Internet would be a much better place if we had sarcasm tags. I think that was the reporters intent.
Was Grunwald also being sarcastic when he said "Fair point. I'll delete. @rober1236Jua my main problem with this is it gives Assange supporters a nice safe persecution complex to hide in" [twitter.com]?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't be arrested for saying you thought 9/11 was a good idea. Fred Phelps claims 9/11 was God's punishment that America deserved because of its embrace of homosexuality, and he's within his rights to express that opinion.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But rest assured, if he said it was God's punishment 'cause he was angry with the US worshiping him in the wrong way and not the correct Sharia way, he'd have been silenced SO fast.
Bible thumping = good, Koran thumping = bad. I don't get the logic behind it, why is one mental illness ok while the other one is a nono.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why must you attack people with mental illnesses to get your point across? People who say shit like this (for example "conservatism is a mental illness") are saying that the people who they disagree with are as bad as the mentally ill. And that is a really fucked up thing to say (making a moral judgement on people that have mental illnesses). It is basically a way to leverage the stigma and taboo of admitting a mental illness as a way to attack somebody.
Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (Score:5, Insightful)
bullshit. Comparing someone with certain thoughts to someone who has a mental illness, is equating those certain thoughts to a mental illness. It's got nothing personal to do with people suffering from a mental illness. You gotta be insane not to understand that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why must you attack shit that is excreted from bovines to get your point across?
Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (Score:5, Funny)
My apologies. What is the currently accepted politically correct term for someone who has an invisible friend and follows his orders?
Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (Score:4, Insightful)
The term for your above statement is hyperbole. You know as well as I do that religious beliefs come in a spectrum, where most people consider them something as general guidance. In this sense, a religion is more a philosophy. In the extreme cases, it is considered a binding ethical doctrine.
When you hear the words "mental illness" think distress and disability. Repeat that, distress and disability. Distress and disability. In a very real sense, a mental illness is a medical condition which is treated to reduce distress and disability. It is not a judgement. Imaginary friends do not mean that you have a mental illness. Nor does talking to yourself or an imaginary friend. When those imaginary friends cause distress or disability, then that is a mental illness. And for 99% of religious people, this does not apply.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I've had experiences much like your appendectomy example, but I'm still not religious for pretty much the reasons you describe. I require my god to be at least as moral as I am, and even then I don't see why it would be appropriate for me to kiss his ass. Furthermore man's theologies have more to do with men, and with the power that men wish to exercise over other men, than with God. To the extent that scripture to be taken seriously, making shit up, even inspired shit, then calling it God's Word, is bla
Re: (Score:3)
I'm religious because St. Paul gave a good evidence based argument for belief in life after death in Corinthians
Presumably you're not referring to
Re: (Score:3)
Then there's this thing called consciousness.
This veers close to a god of the gaps argument straight away, e.g. look - something we don't understand. Therefore, God.
Many try to us Occam's Razor to cut out God from this universe by saying based on our current understanding and knowledge our current universe does not "need" a God. But they could use the very same arguments to say that our current universe does not require humans to actually have consciousness - we could behave the exact same way we do without it (we could behave like self-aware creatures without that actual phenomena that we experience). And yet I know consciousness exists. Whether the rest of you are creatures capable of consciousness who really knows? I'd guess most of you are since I doubt I'm something really special.
This is a philosophical zombie argument, which basically boils down to something untestable. A P Zombie 'thinks' it has real thoughts, feelings, and desires, but it 'doesn't really'. We 'think' we have experiences and qualia. It's untestable, much like the God hypothesis itself. This doesn't mean it's wrong, it means it's untestable, and therefore a matter of faith. Which makes arguments s
Re: (Score:2)
Using a broad definition of mental illness, it's fair to say mentally retarded people and people with Alzheimers, schizophrenics, people with brain injuriies, bipolar and depressed people and autistics, narcissists and psychopaths are all mentally ill and none of them has cause to find the others included in that broad category.
But including a poltical outlook in that category is questionable for several reasons. I think it's possible for a person to be conservative because of a mental illness, but the evi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (Score:4, Interesting)
Any illness requires a pathology. An idea or a belief is not pathological unless it causes significant distress or impairment in functioning (social, work, personal, etc.). Children who believe in the tooth fairy or Santa don't have mental illnesses. People who are communists don't have mental illnesses. Nor do religious people. The point it becomes a mental illness is the point where you can't function or are in too much pain. Believing you have the Holy Ghost inside of you doesn't do that, but believing you are covered in bedbugs will cause significant distress. And believing that you are always followed and snooped on will impair your ability to function.
A mental illness isn't a judgement, it is a need to fix a behavior that is causing distress or inability to function. Political beliefs don't do that. The Nazis weren't mentally ill--not even the ones in the death camps. What so many people forget is that a mental illness is not distorted thinking--it is pathological thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
The levels of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance in conservatives who fell from grace cannot be healthy. Especially when their career and marriage ends publicly. Does that not qualify as pathological?
Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ward Churchill did lose his job, but there is no Constitutional right to have a particular job. If you say McDonald's meat sucks, that's your constitutional right, but if McDonald's fires you over it, you can't really do anything about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ward Churchill was brought to public attention because of making controversial comments, but the University defended his right to make whatever controversial opinion comments he wanted. He was fired for academic research misconduct including plagiarism and falsification of evidence.
Many regard the trial that ensued as a vindication of Churchill's conduct. It was not that. He alleged and the jury believed that his firing would not have occurred if he hadn't also made unpopular political comments. But the
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Actually yes, in general my coworkers consider me level headed and fair. Then again, my coworkers tend to be above average in intelligence, simply due to the kind of work they have to accomplish.
Re: Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (Score:3)
Yes he would be. People have said just that. It's not at all illegal to say awful things in the US.
Re: Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (Score:4, Interesting)
However, telling inconvenient thruths seems to be illegal there. Even if you're not American and don't even live there (Assange).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How is that legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is that legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
But will they actually do something? Can they do anything?
Can a nuclear power do anything? Yes, I think we can.
Whether we would is a more interesting question. It would however rapidly become dangerous to be American in the UK.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's see...
Let's say the UK lodges a formal complaint against the USA in the UN, being a security council member and all that shizzle. I'm pretty sure Russia and China would condemn the drone attack fiercely, just as they have condemned other foreign interventions by the US time and again, but that wouldn't get them far as the USA is also a member and can veto any penalty.
At the EU level though, most countries would side with the UK: at a baser level, the UK could expel US diplomatic personnel (and jail th
Re: (Score:3)
Embassies are not foreign territory. They are treated as such most of the time (hence Ecuadorian laws are used in the Ecuadorian embassy) but they are not.
The hosting government does not need to do anything special to allow an embassy to be taken. Governments will not do that as is would be very bad foreign policy to do so.
They could also revoke the embassy’s rights then take the building and occupants. That is internationally legal but you need good justification to not piss people off (and has been
Re:How is that legal? (Score:5, Funny)
Idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope Michael Grunwald gets to live a world someday where people cheer at firebombing people for non violent crimes they've not even been convicted of. I just hope I don't have to share it with him.
Re:Idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
We're getting there. Really, I think this is the most horrible part of all of the fictional dystopias. All too often, it's not all of humanity stuck in a cage sharing a common plight. The rest of humanity embraces the cage, they make up the cage, and you're all alone in feeling captive.
The mindless, unfocused anger this guy feels is not uncommon. He is stupid enough to let the people in Washington pick the targets of his rage, which isn't uncommon either. We've been building this world for a long time now.
Re:Idiot (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not even a crime because Assange was never in US jurisdiction, nor is he a US citizen. And if he was recognized as a reporter/editor in the US, he would also be protected.
Re:Idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
You missed a more salient point. This guy is a "Time Reporter" and he "Can't Wait" for Julian Assange to be murdered by the USA government for REPORTING.
Gives you a good insight of what the current state of "reporting" is in America. It's all propaganda, there is no reporting in the MSM.
Re:War rules .. (Score:5, Insightful)
What will you do when America isn't there to fight your battles for you?
Perhaps then the battles would not be fought in the first place, people wouldn't die, and resources would be directed to positive developments.
Hard to predict. But the outcome of the current policy is pretty clear: more hatred, violence, and destruction.
Re: (Score:3)
Which do you prefer: A dictator who generally confines his killing to political opponents and threats to his power, or several competing factions divided on religious and ethnic groups each bent on exterminating all the others? Because right now, scarcely a week can go by without another car bombing in Baghdad - and they've even managed to rig explosives on chlorine tankers for improvised chemical weapons.
Re:War rules .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironic that half of Assange's leaks show other countries begging the US to help them police their region of the world.
What will you do when America isn't there to fight your battles for you?
Bullies having friends surprise you?
All valid points though. I guess one may have to pick of having the bad guys run free or having someone looking out and try to catch them. Or whatever.
I guess the reason why we react as we do and why it becomes a problem is that some of us look at our society or on what the government may even tell us and kinda have learned and know what makes society work is in that you let everyone be themself, respect and accept each other, let everyone live a decent life even if that mean you'll have to give up something to help others and so on. If you want a society without conflicts then an equal society is likely a much better choice.
Over here in Sweden we let people in and that lead to some conflict but I guess much of that conflict arrises from them not feeling equal and not having equal chances (read monetary ability), now do you want to open your border and share equal with everyone else? Maybe not. But your society would likely become more friendly and calmer for everyone if you did.
Syria and Egypt goes hard to hard and look where that bring things and how much better everything has become? Similar with say Israel shooting back if someone shot a rocket against them or the old saying an eye for an eye until the whole world goes blind.
If you "know" this create a better society and if your government may even encourage such behavior then it may feel weird when they don't play by the rules or how they preach and just go on the unfriendly route instead.
For whatever reason life is calmer here in Scandinavia. Socialism and all ..
As for guns for everyone or not one facebook group I'm a member of got an admin which seem to be pro guns but this one time he for instance pointed out how many was killed when someone with a gun started a shooting at say a school and the cops ran in vs if someone in the school was equiped with a gun and hence handled the treat himself. He had a point there and I guess he may have a point in that say the risk of being kidnapped if you have a gun yourself may be smaller. On the other hand I can easily see how things go out of control if everyone got a gun and react on their own and I guess that's the reason why we have decided against them. It may work for countries to ..
On a more Sweden related note the US recently shut down a bunch of embassys. I assume Sweden didn't in those countries. Similairly I assume Sweden may have had a pretty good reputation in UN forces due to the neutral status and not pissing people off. I assume you're more trusted and people behave kinder to you if you accept them and behave kindly back.
Whatever. My brain isn't totally engaged right now. Anyway I guess the trouble with the US interfering is that some of us got a feeling that harsh reactions won't work long term and what do work is being nice to others and let them live their lifes.
Re: (Score:3)
According to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate [wikipedia.org]
The net migration rate for the US is much higher than it is for Sweden.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I think they are affraid that the alternative for Obama was even worse.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Journalists licking Obamas boots (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why revoke it? The actions of the Nobel peace prize committee and Obama's subsequent conduct as president are a perfect microcosm of the unbridgeable gap between progressive and left-wing aspirations and reality.
We should award the Ignoble peace prize to the Nobel peace prize committee for making this point so clearly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Look at his most vocal supporters during the elections and at the people who still support him now. The ones I know who still have Obama bumper stickers on their car and storm out of the room when we discuss drone bombings and warrantless wiretapping (or start yelling, "But Bush...") self identify as progressives. Who supports Obama now, except progressives? Even though his policies are not at all progressive. Cue the GP's post about the reality gap...
Or are you going to pull a No True Scotsman here?
Re:Journalists licking Obamas boots (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, since Kissinger got to keep his, I guess a LOT more is necessary than what Obama did. Le Duc Tho at least had the guts to be honest and say "nope, thanks. I prefer to win".
And don't make me start on Arafat.
Re: (Score:2)
can't wait (Score:5, Insightful)
And we can't wait to justify Time firing him. A man having no respect for human live is not appropriate to work as a reporter.
Re:can't wait (Score:4, Funny)
Know how you can spot an irrelevant "journalist"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Snowden at least stands accused of treason. Assange faces rape-after-the-fact charges in one of the most misandrous countries on the planet. Where the fuck does a drone strike against the latter even become a topic open for discussion?
Make your case for Snowden, dude. I happen to consider him nothing short of a hero, but I can certainly appreciate the opposing POV. Assange ranks right up there with the Kardashians for his overall level of ego-vs-the-good-he-could-do.
Then again - Perhaps I have this backward. Yes, nuke Assange (and Rodman, and the Kardashians, etc) from orbit, so they stop trying to steal the spotlight from real discussions we need to have about security vs privacy vs basic human rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what?
Snowden at least stands accused of treason. Assange faces rape-after-the-fact charges in one of the most misandrous countries on the planet. Where the fuck does a drone strike against the latter even become a topic open for discussion?
Make your case for Snowden, dude. I happen to consider him nothing short of a hero, but I can certainly appreciate the opposing POV. Assange ranks right up there with the Kardashians for his overall level of ego-vs-the-good-he-could-do.
Then again - Perhaps I have this backward. Yes, nuke Assange (and Rodman, and the Kardashians, etc) from orbit, so they stop trying to steal the spotlight from real discussions we need to have about security vs privacy vs basic human rights.
Sir (I assume you're male, please forgive me if I guessed wrong), your last line appealed to me so much that I entirely forgot everything you said before it...I think it was the idea of nuking the Kardashians that made me blue screen with glee, especially in the hopes of bringing more real discourse to the public stage again.
Suggest drone strike targets here! (Score:3, Funny)
I think it was the idea of nuking the Kardashians that made me blue screen with glee, especially in the hopes of bringing more real discourse to the public stage again.
Sounds like you have a Kickstarter project there, dude.
Personally I'd go for Justin Bieber. But only if no innocent, bystander monkeys are hurt in the process.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The depressing thing is these drone strikes are effectively the same thing as the car bomb in Washington DC that was used by the Chileans to kill off a political enemy some years back. That's what the US can tu
On the slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, it's a long path and the US has barely set foot on it (..)
"Barely set foot on it" ?!? The US government is murdering people without due process, trial or anything on a regular basis. Without a declaration of war involved. Violating other countries' sovereignty whenever it's convenient and/or 'doable'. Locking people up indefinitely without those prisoners having access to lawyers, a date for their trial, etc. Mass spying on their own citizens, in violation of its own constitution. Guys heading those 3-letter agencies lying about it to the public - but still stay in office. Silencing critics using a claim of "national security", together with gag orders issued by a secret court, or referring to a secret law.
Really, the only step missing is a dictator that rigs an election or sets aside democratic institions. Other than that, the US is a long way down the drain already.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the hypothetical drone strike is suitable punishment for jumping bail in the UK?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You've never lived or spent much time in Sweden, have you?
It's true that relations between the sexes are rather different here than most places I've been. The difference is that women here are brought up to believe that they're fully equal to men, and they're not obligated in any way to do whatever men tell them to do simply because they're women.
It might not be what you're used to (and it took me a few years to adjust to it, myself), but to dismiss it as "misandry" is a complete mischaracterisation.
Who decides? (Score:4, Insightful)
For every person you hate hard enough to wish a drone strike upon them...
Someone else in the world hates you just as much...
I can't wait for a drone strike on michael grunwald. That bastard is an anti american piece of shit.
There was a Twilight Zone episode like this (Score:3)
Button, Button (The Twilight Zone) [wikipedia.org]
I think of this when I consider the whole concept of drones as used to murder inconvenient individuals.
Some day, someone else who does not see you as fully human will have control over the box.
Reprehensible (Score:5, Insightful)
As a former soldier, I find it ethically and morally reprehensible that Mr. Grunwald would advocate and look forward to someone's death. It's clear he has never taken a life, nor lived through the realities of conflict.
If anyone else were advocating the violent death of another, it would be a crime; perhaps it's time for some standards to be applied to all - right, left, far left (journalists). This behaviour is disgusting.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If anyone else were advocating the violent death of another, it would be a crime; perhaps it's time for some standards to be applied to all - right, left, far left (journalists), far right (faux journalists at fox, etc.).
FTFY
The media in the US is by and large very conservative. The "liberal" media is a myth, the US media is anything but liberal, particularly the news media.
Re:Reprehensible (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reprehensible (Score:5, Insightful)
Which, in most other western countries, would be placed quite firmly on the right of the political spectrum. The US only has representation on the right. There is no real left to speak of.
Re:Reprehensible (Score:5, Informative)
The Democratic party isn't very left wing. America's idea of left wing is what Europe considers slightly right leaning.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes [telegraph.co.uk] they [wordpress.com] were [contrepoints.org]. And merely blabbering "no they were not" with zero argument won't somehow magically unmake them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Reprehensible (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Reprehensible (Score:5, Insightful)
It's his opinion, and as disgusting as it is, he is entitled to it.
My thoughts are that that is totally wrong, as are a lot of the executions that the US carries out in the name of "terrorism". It all goes against what we claim are fundamental beliefs, that everyone deserves a fair trial. Apparently now though, if they label you a "terrorist" (much like the McCarthy era "communist"), none of that counts.
Advocating the execution of someone without giving them a fair trial... in my opinion that would make us no better than a lot of the countries that the US condemns for their execution of dissidents and people who fall outside of the party line.
Incitement to Murder and terrorist crime (Score:5, Insightful)
It was not merely offensive. It was incitement to murder.
By a journalist of an international publication.
On another journalist.
Who is being given asylum against prosecution.
Prosecution aimed at unraveling the sources to articles published by various newspapers and magazines.
Regardless of whatever stance or determination might be made about Assange, this is a descent into utter evil, when a so-called journalist incites people through a global medium to murder a whistleblower - basically the most courageous journalistic source on the face of the earth. Well, maybe we have a few of these people in existence now.
Incidentally, the Time readers poll in 2010 voted Assange the Time Person of the Year, though somehow (not enough guts on the editorial board, I guess?) that asshole Zuckerberg got the spot.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/13/julian-assange-readers-choice-for-times-person-of-the-year-2010/ [time.com]
Of course all of the above still is true even if you don't consider Assange a journalist. Even if you consider him an enemy combatant.
Journalists have lost all their backbone and principles but this takes it to a new ultra-low.
The other dumb bit is how Time said it was just an "offensive" tweet apparently.
If Time and other big media names want to survive in the networked media age, the only thing they have going for them is quality, journalistic integrity, and strong adherence to an ethically unassailable position of trust. Time and other major newspapers and news magazines should take a very strong stance against Grunwald.
I highly recommend a big lashing out at Time but all its competitors in the marketplace, who can have fun climbing all over themselves to be the first to tar and feather that ugly cretin.
Re: (Score:2)
This type of behaviour is unacceptable for a reporter and journalist as it is for the publication he works for.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you need to know about this (Score:5, Insightful)
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ [umanitoba.ca]
There it is. The classic, all time, full bore, scientifically confirmed explanation of what authoritarianism is.
Everyone has a little authoritarian in them, especially at the point of being "fed up" with others, where ever that is. Therefore, everyone needs to check themselves against it. True civil libertarians (non-Ron Paul types) excel us all in this capability and this makes them what they are.
Maybe there are very extreme circumstances in which some aspects of the civil society's foundations work against civil society. Lincoln thought he found some.
One thing we know, The doings of Julian Assange and Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden and Walter Binney and John Kiriakou and Walter Drake and all the rest of the people who acted in accordance with the values all Americans and the Founding Fathers were inculcated with do not represent those circumstances.
It's amazing to me how unsophisticated the response has been from the administration and by proxy the NSA itself. Presumably they have multiple, best-course-of-action for any eventuality all analyzed beforehand and mapped out. Is THIS response what they have on the books? IS this the best unlimited access to the nations best social and cultural thinkers can produce?
Maybe Assange acted with disregard to national security, he claims to have tried to vet the documents with the NSA and CIA and State Dept but they refused to engage him the way they would have WaPo or the Times. Who knows? Anyways, there's a lot conceptual space between THAT and being a drone worthy terrorist or a traitor. Ditto on down the line.
What's the lesson for us in this specific incident? For the sake of your career, don't drink and Twitter ? Read The Authoritarians at least once a year ? Perform a thorough, searching, honest and skeptical self examination of your values and actions at least as often as you get a haircut?
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. I expected to find something interesting at that link, but I was blown away with the level of delusion and ignorance. Turns out the left may really be as bat shit crazy as the right wing radio hosts all say.
Yeah, those same right-wing radio hosts clearly have a great grip [foxnews.com] on reality [mediamatters.org]...
Re: (Score:3)
I think the delusion that he was referring to was the assertion that the Obama administration was trying to reduce "authoritarianism."
The usual test balloon? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Let's see how the population reacts, if they just shrug to it, let's see how much else we can get away with. If it causes an outcry, we can always say it was the idea of a solitary lunatic"
It's not like it would be the first time...
Re: (Score:2)
At least the people of the Arab world followed the lead of a desperate street merchant and fought oppression during the Arab Spring, even more has to happen before the overdue Western Spring is to come about.
Re:The usual test balloon? (Score:5, Insightful)
History taught us that it usually takes hungry people to stage a revolution.
And considering that a shortage of food isn't really high on the US' problems list, I guess we have to wait for a while.
Re:The usual test balloon? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Let's see how the population reacts, if they just shrug to it, let's see how much else we can get away with. If it causes an outcry, we can always say it was the idea of a solitary lunatic"
It's not like it would be the first time...
Alternatively, it's a well-thought plan to get a new job. Maybe his career has plateaued at the Time, and if he manages to get fired for a controversial opinion he has a bit of publicity when Fox (or some other conservative outfit) hires the journalist whose speech was "censured by the liberal media".
Time has been a joke for decades. (Score:2)
So it seems that Time has gone to only hiring minimum wage reporters now, Did they pick this guy from a local restaurant that was their waiter?
Maybe (Score:2)
Maybe he meant it in the way so that he'd get paid just to write "It can't be justified."
Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
You know what else we need? (Score:5, Informative)
SWAT team raids for petty offences [nydailynews.com]
The police holding kids for ransom [newyorker.com]
I mean F it. Why don't we wear burkas and execute women drivers while we are at it. Shit.
Re:You know what else we need? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing - we could get a system that doesn't single out any racial or ethnic group for targeting. It could talk nice about equal rights for women and minorities, and even be for equality for GLBT people and so on. But that system could still be fascist. It could create its scapegoats by blaming some sort of made up group (for example, claiming people like Snowden were "Unmutualists", as in the original "The Prisoner" TV show). It could stifle dissent by claiming often enough and loudly enough, that anyone dissenting was supporting terrorists or pedophiles. It could put tremendous numbers of people in prison, and show a strong anti-minority bias, but shift all arguments to the question of whether the opportunities for those minority members not (yet) imprisoned were equal, and talk the talk of supporting equality. It could even allow some criticism by admitting that everything wasn't perfect yet, just so the critic didn't cross the line into saying theings were getting worse. A Fascism that didn't need to follow classic anti-minority lines but created its enemies piecemeal could probably survive better than one that was obviously racist or sexist. One that allowed some dissent within limits could probably survive better than one which quickly brought out the iron boot - and one that shifted the focus of its two minute hates often enough could probably supress dissent even better than one that always brought up Emmanuel Goldstein.
Ambiguous... at first (Score:5, Insightful)
When I read the tweet at first, I thought it could be interpreted as sarcasm. As in: "A drone strike is inevitable, and I'm going to have to be one of the guys who justifies it to the public. Great... I can't wait for that."
But then I read his reason for deleting the tweet (in agreement with tweeter rober1236Jua), and it seems more clear that Michael Grunwald really is looking forward to the murder of Assange because he obviously has a problem with him and his supporters:
Fair point. I'll delete. @rober1236Jua my main problem with this is it gives Assange supporters a nice safe persecution complex to hide in
How can you call for someone's murder and simultaneously accuse them of having a persecution complex? It's akin to Orwellian doublethink.
Grunwald and rober1236Jua are both sickening.
Better lock him up under terrorism charges (Score:2)
Times up for Time magazine (Score:5, Insightful)
Becoming the story, rather than reporting it: (Score:3)
This sounds a bit like some reporter saying "Dammit, it's too boring around here today. I wish there was a grisly fatal multicar pileup so I could write something about it."
Then again, there's the old Hollywood idea that any hype is good hype for a career. Grunwald is certainly getting discussed more now than before this.
I would love to see this. (Score:3)
In the end, they'd still try to justify it because they know it could be the rallying cry for the masses FINALLY waking up and booting every single one of these clowns out of office. If that happens, the media loses their biggest ally and would have to go back to actual journalism instead of repeating whatever the White House Press Office gives them...
Or maybe we'll just end up with more reality-tv tripe and things will continue on. Probably this, but I can dream, can't I?
He should be careful what he wishes for (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a very short distance between what he's advocating and the government-sanctioned murder of journalists, dissidents, conscientious objectors and whistleblowers.
Given that the DOJ is now going against companies that give classes in evading polygraph tests, I can only imagine the number of other things that will be made illegal over the next decade to serve the security state. And this guy seems to be a cheerleader for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Want me to show you a few ways how you can turn a remote controlled aircraft into a weapon without having to "weaponize" it at all?
You can literally turn EVERYTHING into a weapon, given creativity.
Re: (Score:2)
People that make ignorant statements like this reporter typically don't live long when guns are involved.
People like this talk a lot of shit, then end up dead when someone gets tired of them running their mouth. In a short period of time, this sort of trash talking ends because they get called on it.
Contrary to what you might think, the hot heads and loud mouths you are most afraid are the first ones to Darwin themselves with weapons.
Re: (Score:3)
We're not all as medieval as you yanks, you know.
Re:Being way to nice on a Traitor. (Score:5, Informative)
I see no issue wishing a drone strike against this traitor. Ass-ange thought it was his own justification for what he has done. In my opinion that makes him a traitor and should be either hung or shot by a firing squad then dumped in the ocean. This is what use to be done to traitors. Not some BS political trial, which is just wasting more money.
You cant be a traitor to a country you hold no allegiance to.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, they did manage to bomb the Chinese embassy in Belgrade 14 years ago.