The New Domestic War on Terror Is Coming
greenwald.substack.com
greenwald.substack.com
I fear that claims that a "domestic terrorism" threat exists will create an industry that at some point, will be too large and profitable to dismantle.
I disagree. He has, in my opinion, fallen for the very "creeping extremism" that he once decried. He does not appear to think rationally any more about the level of threat he perceives, nor of the source or logical outcome of the scenarios which play through his head.
The whole Hunter Biden laptop situation is a great example. He decried the fact that media was not covering the allegation, despite the leaps of faith were necessary to consider these allegations in good faith. He ignored the disparity of the threats - the risk that Hunter Biden might be trading off his family name versus the risk that white supremacists might attack the national capital in an attempt to overturn democracy.
> I fear that claims that a "domestic terrorism" threat exists will create an industry that at some point, will be too large and profitable to dismantle.
Cool. A reasonable fear on the face of things. I mean, I cannot see how, but it is a reasonable fear I suppose. However the problem which raises its ugly head is that Greenwald appears to not give a shit that domestic terrorism just took a large swing at the basis of US democracy, or that support for these terrorists appear to be well entrenched in the police, military and political classes. I mean, by all means avoid the profiteering that the Republicans brought to the threat of Muslim terrorism, but by no means ignore the fact that there exists a large pool of disenfranchised white men who are eager to throw another punch in the direction of their perceived enemies.
The capitol attack took place two months after Greenwald's article, I really don't see how he was supposed to know about this.
Greenwald's not talking about that, he's pointing out that very similar arguments were used to pass a bunch of terrible laws back in 2001. And he's right.
Certainly, there are problems with passing knee-jerk laws that restrict privacy, and these should be clearly laid out. However, many of the people and mindsets that created the PATRIOT act are still in DC, and it's wise to be aware of what's probably going to happen as a result of the Capitol Hill attack.
Personally, I think spending all that money on infrastructure would be much more likely to solve the problem, but that's communism apparently. \s
My problem with Greenwald in general and his recent articles in particular, is that he does apparently believe in context. He is the very model of a flag-waving, freedom-lover who believes that any loss of freedom by any individual going forward is unthinkable. Whether that individual is a corporation (such as his defense of Facebook whose perverse incentives of using conflict and polarisation to drive daily usage have driven much of this conflict) or an actual, factual person who has committed crimes and is now decrying that they should be kept from committing others, does not seem to sway him.
Freedoms are not absolutes. Freedoms are constructs, and spectrum-based at that. Greenwald seems to think that they are atomic, and that splitting them in the face of real need is the scarlet mark of a militaristic thug.
Laws are required to deal with right-wing terrorism, which is the biggest terrorist threat the US (and the West) faces. Much of the incitement of this threat is coming from social media and traditional media organisations who make money and pander influence through exaggerating fears and stoking hatred. Laws are required to tackle these issues five days ago, yet Greenwald thinks that reusing old (somewhat imperfect) laws now is a plot to wage a new domestic war, rather than a way of getting action happening today while coming up with better alternatives (or not) tomorrow.
Lastly, a President who calls on terrorist groups to "Stand down and stand by" and who later calls on them to "Stop the steal", a President who lies about whether elections were fair, who lies about having a COVID vaccination plan (preferring, as we saw today, to have literally nothing prepared or ready), a President who steals and grifts and offers pardons to criminals who have paid him - well, let me say, anyone who defends such a President is either an idiot, or has an ulterior motive for their shirt-rending, freedom spewing diatribe.
Context matters. And context shows Greenwald to be an ass.
Aah that hurts man... I almost wanted to correct you but I convinced nothing will convince you anymore. Consider yourself a victim of the media. Greenwald therefore was right.
Yes, that pesky need for evidence in order to get me start making leaps of faith to accept the premises required.
> Consider yourself a victim of the media. Greenwald therefore was right.
Why? Honestly, why should I?
Prove the premise, don't ask me to blindly accept it like an elderly patient being euthanized with a pillow. No "shh, shh, shh, don't struggle, just accept it". No "it's all for the best, don't think about it."
If you want me to accept evidence, demonstrate it. For example - the whole DKIM thing proves very little beyond a snippet of an email was sent and received by two entities. It doesn't prove it came from the laptop received by the technician, it doesn't prove that the email held up as evidence was read by Hunter Biden, or that it pertained to anything more than a social setting, or, well, that it has the context that Greenwald so desperately wants it to have. There are fewer assumed entities in the scenario where a hacker has access to Hunter Biden's account and sends the email knowing they will be able to pick it up later. I'm not inclined to believe either scenario off the bat - but one scenario is certainly more plausible than the other.
Greenwald desperately yearns for everyone to believe that both sides are as bad as each other. He wants the Biden family painted in the same light as the Trump family demonstrate day after day. Why? I don't know. But I don't buy into this premise without evidence.
Standard cult thinking.
No, they haven't, and you can tell this because Greenwald can't point to a single extension of domestic police powers. All he can point to is people talking, in the future tense, about applying existing domestic police powers against a long-recognized threat which, out of political favoritism, has not in the past been targeted the way other (often less dangerous) domestic threats have been.
There are certainly some legitimate grounds for concern about that, too, but they are bypassed and obscured in Greenwald’s dishonest and tiresome anti-“liberals” partisan fearmongering.