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.
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
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.
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?
"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...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
My apologies. What is the currently accepted politically correct term for someone who has an invisible friend and follows his orders?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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
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.
SWAT team raids for petty offences
The police holding kids for ransom
I mean F it. Why don't we wear burkas and execute women drivers while we are at it. Shit.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
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.
Snowden at least stands accused of treason.
Nope. He stands accused of espionage, but that's bullshit, too. Treason has a very specific definition in US law, and whistleblowing isn't making war on the United States.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
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.
I stopped taking Time magazine seriously when they had Ben Bernanke as Person of the Year.
As I recall, Jesus was pretty specific about what you need to do to be in his good books. Roughly paraphased, it boils down to 'sell all your stuff, give the money to the poor and hit the road spreading the good news, god will look after you'. I don't see many 'christians' doing this part. I don't actually see any, personally. Conservative christians, like many religious people, pick and choose which bits are important to them (marriage seems like one of their favourites). They then criticise and judge people who don't align to their views on the matter (pretty sure Jesus also admonished that, but whatevs). ;)
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.