It’s called Fox News, and it’s time for Salon.com to dump Glenn Greenwald and send him off to his rightful place among the Chicken Little conspiracy theorists and anti-Obama demagogues.
Greenwald’s “three myths” piece on the National Defense Authorization Act should allow this unprofessional lefty to sidestep the normal hiring procedures and join up immediately with Rupert Murdoch’s staff of paranoid nuts and bald-faced liars.
He’s earned it, after all.
For those found wanting in the art of elucidating congressional legislative legalese, or for those easily swayed by the emotional appeals of the attention-seeking Harold Campings of the world, Greenwald is a welcomed companion.
But he’s also a fool.
Rather than capitalizing on this golden opportunity to dissect the NDAA bill and start a national dialogue about the potentially harmful effects it could or may have with regard to the United States’ foreign policy, Greenwald instead chose to exploit one piece of the bill in order to gain some media attention and, apparently, boost his credibility among the anti-government, Tea Party Libertarian demographic of Fox News viewers.
It worked, but then he was debunked, and now he’s a laughing stock.
Let the record show that despite what Greenwald may claim, NDAA doesn’t allow for the “indefinite detention” of U.S. citizens. Conveniently redacting from his otherwise verbatim citation of the NDAA, Greenwald ignores the section within the bill that essentially debunks this core piece of his argument:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
Nor is there such a thing as “indefinite detention.” As Adam Serwer of Mother Jones
notes, “(NDAA) allows people who think the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks gives the president the authority to detain US citizens without charge or trial to say that, but it also allows people who can read the Constitution of the United States to argue something else.”
Does the bill “expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF”? Yes, but when you’re riling the masses with threats of “indefinite incarceration” of United States citizens, who cares about “expanding the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF” or “codifying” operations that are already in place in the U.S. military.
Greenwald justifies his sky-is-falling hysteria by stating that “there are real dangers to codifying” the “far broader language” of the NDAA bill. The “real” danger, of course, is that it’s nowcodified, whereas before it wasn’t…codified.
For anyone who paid attention, his only sane critique is that “broader language” means people who “substantially support” or are “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States” will face military incarceration, whereas before “substantially” and “associated forces” were not specifically written into any military detention laws.
Unfortunately for Greenwald, there are bloggers out there who are willing to set the record straight when irresponsible fear-mongers squander the chance to have a real, honest and constructive conversation about the powers awarded to the United States military and instead choose to severely mislead the public, falsely attack the administration, and lustfully feed their egos with attention-grabbing stories of no more import than news of a Hollywood love triangle.
Hats off to Milt Shook
, who has already framed this over-hyped issue in its most logical context: by making the point that to veto this bill would be to defund the military until Congress reconvenes next year. (And for the record, the U.S. Senate needs only a two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto. Eighty-three senators voted for the NDAA bill.)
Hats off to RoadKillRefugee
for reminding us of Greenwald’s past record of publicly demonstrating how grossly he “lack(s) all practical perspective…” His NDAA conniption is merely a repeat performance of a masterfully executed trick.
And hats off to AngryBlackLady
for calling a spade a spade and setting the record straight for those remaining few who still think Greenwald’s half-witted blog posts contain even so much as a morsel of relevance. “It is hyperbole on steroids cynically contrived to elicit a particular emotional response from the readers, knowing that most of them lack the ability to parse complicated and lengthy legislation, and the concomitant case law.”
Glenn Greenwald is a sell-out, a pock-mark on the progressive movement, and no less of an embarrassment to the left than Glenn Beck is to whatever sane factions remain of the right.
Sensationalism sells, but why steal moves from the Fox News playbook when you could be on the payroll?