Slashdot Mirror
Time Reporter "Can't Wait" To Justify Drone Strike On Julian Assange
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.'"
Justifying a murder, or in this case glorifying murder by hoping to write a justification for it, must be hate speech.
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.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
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.
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.
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
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?
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.
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.
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.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Believer" is the correct term for someone who has an invisible friend and follows the orders of other humans who claim to represent that friend.
The orders are coming from humans. As are the moral instructions, values admonitions, consolations, and promises for the future. The money offered up to the invisible friend is also going to humans, and quite a lot of that gets distributed to poor humans out of altruism (the rest gets kept, of course, by the agents of the invisible friend).
So, that makes the situation of a believer very different from the situation of, say, a schizophrenic, who takes orders from a hallucination (which may appear to be like another human, but is NOT another human, because it is in fact a figment of the schizophrenic's imagination).
So, there is your word and why the word you would like to use does not fit.
"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".
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
I stopped taking Time magazine seriously when they had Ben Bernanke as Person of the Year.
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.
Who is John Cabal?
Not all conservatives are religious and not all religious conservatives are of the same religion. Further, not all conservatives are conservative in everything they do and practice.
I hope that didn't shock your reality and cause some severe cognitive dissonance within your own self. You seem to be suffering the same mental process called stereotyping that has allowed racists to claim all blacks are drug pushing gangster wanna be's who thieve, kill, and lie because they met a couple like that at some point in time or saw it on the news.
IF we take this a step further, we can assume you are inclined to reference all conservatives as Christians but don't understand what that means. You see, Jesus was a neccesity because Man could not live up to the standards and laws God put to us. His entire premise is that he offers a way into God's grace and eternal salvation by sacrificing himself for our sins. All we have to do to get this is accept Jesus into our hearts and ask for forgiveness.
Now here is the important part. If the Chrisitan religion is developed around acknowledging that we cannot be perfect and need to ask for forgiveness from time to time, then why is someone screwing up their marriage supposed to be a sign of cognitive dissonance or pathological? I mean make peace with your maker, repent and move on. There is no problem at all if you understand what you seem to be railing again.
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.
Does he want children to starve to death because he loves them? Does he want people raped and murdered because he loves them? Did god make hemorrhagic fevers because he loves us? Did god order the Israelites to murder men, women, and children because he loved those men, women, and children? Oh that's right. That's all our fault somehow, and no matter what god decides to do to us for whatever reasons he chooses, it's all good and perfect because god is god Q.E.D. If god can't stand to be around his own creation because they chose to not do everything he wanted, he's not all powerful. The fact is, he can but would rather see us burn eternally than to spend time with someone told a white lie or talked back to their parents or ate a gdamn piece of fruit he arbitrarily decided they couldn't. Most Christians' vision of god is in no way moral. They are battered spouses in an abusive relationship that exists only in their own minds. Which would be fine on its own, but so many of them feel the need to push everyone into the same relationship both through emotional child abuse and legal means.