Elsewhere in the Greensboro blogsphere, you are very likely to see links to Glenn Greenwald as an authoritative source.
You will not find that to be the case here. Or here. Or here . Or here either.
Sock puppetry disqualifies Greenwald as an intellectually honest source.
(hat tip: Instapundit)
I'm still awaiting a legal analysis that disproves anything Greenwald has written in the legal arena. Sockpuppetry is dumb and dishonest, but 1) if true [the circumstantial evidence amassed to date does not rule out Greenwald's lover or friends with access to his computer sockpuppeting on Greenwald's behalf], it's being perpetrated by a guy who's been blogging less than a year, and 2) as a moral issue it pales in comparison to the violations of law and the Constitution Greenwald has documented.
ReplyDeleteGreenwald has little credibility.
ReplyDeleteHis opinion is just that, an opinion, and has no more value than yours or mine.
If you choose to agree with it, that's your right. If I choose to disagree with it, that's my right, too.
jaycee, I'm not going to play your Foucaultian games on my OWN blog, let alone on David's.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's the truth, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteGreenwald has an OPINION, and he has the same right to it as you or I. And it has the same value; it's just an opinion.
If you agree, that's fine. I'll fight to my death to defend your right to express that opinion.
By the same token, I expect you to respect my opinion.
Lawyers are paid to provide opinions, one can choose to take them or leave them.
It's been show that Greenwald is not credible. I choose not to pay any attention to him.
And, anyway, Lex, this is NOT your blog. You have no responsibility or obligation to respond to my posts, or even comment. And you surely don't have the right to tell me what to post or not to post. You can't ban me here just because you don't agree with me, like you've done many times on your own blog.
ReplyDeleteYou expressed an opinion and so did I. We both have that right if we abide by Bubba's rules.
But don't try to tell me what to do in somebody else's yard.
Uh, jaycee, please go back and read my response to you and tell me where, exactly, I try to tell you to do anything, in Bubba's back yard or anyone else's.
ReplyDeleteLex, you said you weren't going to play my "games" on here.
ReplyDeleteNobody asked you to.
Try to stay on topic and refrain from attacking me.
You want on-topic, jaycee?
ReplyDelete"I'm still awaiting a legal analysis that disproves anything Greenwald has written in the legal arena."
That should hold you a while. :-)
There's no "proving" or "disproving" someone's opinion, legal or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteYou're free to agree or disagree, but it's still just an opinion.
No, jaycee, it's a bit more than "just opinion." Court rulings tend to follow precedents, which means, among other things, that absent a different set of facts or a truly novel legal argument in a particular case, the precedents can be relied upon as a guide for what "the law" is and how judges will rule in similar cases. That's relevant because one distinguishing characteristic of the administration's behavior and legal arguments in many areas (and with particular respect to torture and fair-trial issues) is that there are no precedents for such government behavior that haven't eventually been overruled by the Supreme Court and/or come to be seen, in hindsight, as horrendous mistakes (e.g., Korematsu).
ReplyDeleteThe precedents Greenwald has cited in his analyses appear 1) to be relevant and 2) to suggest that the arguments raised thus far by the government in defense of actions that otherwise are, on their face, violations of FISA, would be rejected by the courts. As I said, I'm open to legal analyses that suggest the government's arguments would prevail ... but no one has offered any that I'm aware of.
If Greenwald is indeed a sockpuppet, or tolerates such behavior on the part of those with access to his computer, that's wrong and sad. But that alone doesn't undercut the validity of his legal analysis. Only another, better legal analysis can do that.
"Legal analysis" is just an ed-ju-macated word for "opinion." Greenwald is giving his opinion.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to want to search out the opinions of others with whom you agree and present them as "fact" because "so-and-so" said them.
For every opinion, legal or otherwise, that you can find on a given subject I can find someone who has an equal and opposite opinion. Doesn't make either of them facts, they're just opinions.
Blogs, editorials, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly---they're all just opinions.
While they are great grist for blog discussions, letters to the editor, etc., they're merely expressions of opinion.