×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Time Reporter "Can't Wait" To Justify Drone Strike On Julian Assange

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the should-I-not-have-said-that? dept.

The Media 490

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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

490 comments

How is that legal? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599675)

Justifying a murder, or in this case glorifying murder by hoping to write a justification for it, must be hate speech.

Re: How is that legal? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599715)

Not in the US it isn't.

Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599855)

Or looking to make justifications for the execution of 3,000 decadent infidels in 11.9.

It's not so free, is it.

Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about 8 months ago | (#44599885)

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.

Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#44599923)

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.

Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599983)

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.

Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600055)

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.

Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600143)

Why must you attack shit that is excreted from bovines to get your point across?

Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600105)

Maybe because conservatism is a mental illness? As is liberalism? The truth is always nuanced and in the middle somewhere. It's called rationality and the way that the universe works, convergence to the mean. There's no way to change that.

Those that stray to the extremes of an ideology are inherently not rational. Why shouldn't that be classified as a mental illness?

Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600261)

Any illness requires a pathology. An idea or a belief is not pathological unless it causes significant distress or impairment in functioning (social, work, personal, etc.). Children who believe in the tooth fairy or Santa don't have mental illnesses. People who are communists don't have mental illnesses. Nor do religious people. The point it becomes a mental illness is the point where you can't function or are in too much pain. Believing you have the Holy Ghost inside of you doesn't do that, but believing you are covered in bedbugs will cause significant distress. And believing that you are always followed and snooped on will impair your ability to function.

A mental illness isn't a judgement, it is a need to fix a behavior that is causing distress or inability to function. Political beliefs don't do that. The Nazis weren't mentally ill--not even the ones in the death camps. What so many people forget is that a mental illness is not distorted thinking--it is pathological thinking.

Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#44600213)

My apologies. What is the currently accepted politically correct term for someone who has an invisible friend and follows his orders?

Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600313)

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.

Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 8 months ago | (#44600289)

Using a broad definition of mental illness, it's fair to say mentally retarded people and people with Alzheimers, schizophrenics, people with brain injuriies, bipolar and depressed people and autistics, narcissists and psychopaths are all mentally ill and none of them has cause to find the others included in that broad category.

But including a poltical outlook in that category is questionable for several reasons. I think it's possible for a person to be conservative because of a mental illness, but the evidence for it being typically learned and culturally reinforced is massive.

Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600023)

Most Americans are Christians. That's why. Or maybe you were being rhetorical.

Incidentally, you are right. If one uses one's right to express opinions that are too unpopular (though perfectly legal) one gets punished, for example Ward Churchill [wikipedia.org] lost his job for daring to say that America might have done a few things bad enough to piss off people enough that they would attack us.

Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (1)

Trepidity (597) | about 8 months ago | (#44600175)

Ward Churchill did lose his job, but there is no Constitutional right to have a particular job. If you say McDonald's meat sucks, that's your constitutional right, but if McDonald's fires you over it, you can't really do anything about it.

Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 8 months ago | (#44600349)

Ward Churchill was brought to public attention because of making controversial comments, but the University defended his right to make whatever controversial opinion comments he wanted. He was fired for academic research misconduct including plagiarism and falsification of evidence.

Many regard the trial that ensued as a vindication of Churchill's conduct. It was not that. He alleged and the jury believed that his firing would not have occurred if he hadn't also made unpopular political comments. But they did not consider whether or not he had engaged in the misconduct which in fact he had. He plagiarized parts of his work and outright made up evidence to support his thesis of an intentional use of smallpox in the genocides of American Indian tribes. Whether or not he would have been fired for such offenses, had his poltical comments about 9/11 not been inflammatory, he should have been fired for such misconduct. It is the professor's job to teach by his own example how to do academic research, and he was a bad example.

Re: Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600057)

Utter nonsense. People in the US have said that 9/12 was justified, that the US did this to itself, that the Israelis did, that Al Qaeda should be applauded and so on. They weren't so much as charged with a crime, because guess what it's not a crime to be an asshole in the US. Here's one example:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/05/ohio-muslim-leader-says-911-planned-by-americans-praises-al-qaeda-linked-yemenite-sheikh.html

Utter bullshit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600099)

People in the US have said that 11/9 had justifications.

Others said it was justified.

The latter are in various jails.

Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600171)

Nice straw man argument. So you hate religion and have access to a computer. You must be a joy to work with, assuming you have a job.

Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (1, Troll)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#44600231)

Actually yes, in general my coworkers consider me level headed and fair. Then again, my coworkers tend to be above average in intelligence, simply due to the kind of work they have to accomplish.

Nope, but you CAN be done for exhorting more. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599943)

You know, like Abu Quatada.

You know, the dude who you've had extradited for SAYING that this shit should happen.

Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (0)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 8 months ago | (#44599949)

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.

I wonder if he also would still be free if instead he had claimed it were Allah's punishment for suppression of the Muslims ...

Re: Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (2)

Python (1141) | about 8 months ago | (#44600083)

Yes he would be. People have said just that. It's not at all illegal to say awful things in the US.

Re:How is that legal? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599723)

Only if you're justifying murder by the 'wrong' side.

Re:How is that legal? (0)

stenvar (2789879) | about 8 months ago | (#44599863)

If it's an Obama-ordered drone strike, it isn't legally murder.

Merely being hateful doesn't make anything "hate speech". Hate speech only applies to specific, protected groups.

And, most importantly, the US protects free speech, and hate speech isn't illegal in the US.

Re:How is that legal? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599939)

What US, the US of Pluton or the US of Urano. The first amend is paper toilet for the current goverment.

Re:How is that legal? (1)

Yoda222 (943886) | about 8 months ago | (#44599961)

Even a Obama-ordered drone strike is a murder, in most of the countries in the world. Such an attack against Assange in the Ecuador embassy in London will certainly be seen as a murder by Ecuador, maybe even by the UK.

Re:How is that legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599865)

It's not murder if we're doing it.

Re:How is that legal? (2, Interesting)

Stumbles (602007) | about 8 months ago | (#44599871)

Not really hate speech. Obama has use drone strikes against individuals, so really all the tweet was doing is drawing attention to our president indiscriminately murdering individuals without a warrant or like means. The Internet would be a much better place if we had sarcasm tags. I think that was the reporters intent.

Re: How is that legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599987)

Fuck off with your new-age hypersensitive phony outrage crap. It was a damn (good) joke.

Re:How is that legal? (0)

phrostie (121428) | about 8 months ago | (#44600255)

remember when our press was supposed to be unbias and just report the news.

yeah, that's been a while.

now they tell us what they think we should think.

Jealous? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599713)

Never heard of the guy before, doesn't sound as if he's published anything of value?

Idiot (5, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | about 8 months ago | (#44599717)

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.

War rules .. (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 8 months ago | (#44599789)

... always suck I suppose.

Anyway, if one is happy with bombing at will with no trial and anytime anywhere just wait until it happens in the other direction.

I know the US plan is to always beat everyone in any military arena but I wonder whatever you'll really have the man power and economy to do that in the future? Maybe if you start expanding more seriously.

US world pol^Wbullies.

Re:War rules .. (0, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | about 8 months ago | (#44600053)

US world pol^Wbullies.

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?

Re:War rules .. (5, Insightful)

dmbasso (1052166) | about 8 months ago | (#44600219)

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.

Re:Idiot (4, Insightful)

chihowa (366380) | about 8 months ago | (#44599995)

We're getting there. Really, I think this is the most horrible part of all of the fictional dystopias. All too often, it's not all of humanity stuck in a cage sharing a common plight. The rest of humanity embraces the cage, they make up the cage, and you're all alone in feeling captive.

The mindless, unfocused anger this guy feels is not uncommon. He is stupid enough to let the people in Washington pick the targets of his rage, which isn't uncommon either. We've been building this world for a long time now.

Re:Idiot (3, Insightful)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 8 months ago | (#44600035)

It's not even a crime because Assange was never in US jurisdiction, nor is he a US citizen. And if he was recognized as a reporter/editor in the US, he would also be protected.

Re:Idiot (5, Insightful)

udachny (2454394) | about 8 months ago | (#44600039)

You missed a more salient point. This guy is a "Time Reporter" and he "Can't Wait" for Julian Assange to be murdered by the USA government for REPORTING.

Gives you a good insight of what the current state of "reporting" is in America. It's all propaganda, there is no reporting in the MSM.

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600071)

What I find odd is there have been people for five years yelling about the illegal things Obama has done and how the press has been covering up for them. Most of the time it ends in those people being called racists or terrorists.

1. I would like to know what was the event that turned kissing Obama's ass as being the only socially acceptable thing to do, to now being ridiculed for doing the same thing.
2. Is it now acceptable to quote Glenn Beck (or similar people) as being correct about the administration all along or are we only accepting of journalists that turned on the administration after whatever event made it acceptable to ridicule the administration.

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600133)

Yes! I don't have any way to rate this up... Thanks for posting this though! Yes!

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600225)

He already does. Barack Obama has been droning innocent people for nearly 5 years with impunity. Cheered on by people from the left and the right.

I fail to see any difference from his predecessor. The US still acts like the biggest bully on the block, which is why we're hated around the world.

Time to revoke his Nobel Peace Prize.

He'd better not try to come to the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599725)

It is the UK's responsibility to protect Foreign Embassy's and other diplomatic establishments that are located on UK soil.
The same goes for the US and foreign embassy's on US Soil.

This statement could clearly be viewed as 'insighting a case of terrorism'.
I wish the US would even consider extraditing a US Citizen on Terrorism Charges but they won't so it isn't even
worth trying.

Re:He'd better not try to come to the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599823)

This statement could clearly be viewed as 'insighting a case of terrorism'.

The guy's lame tweet was insightful? And that's a crime? That was a pretty funny typo. Obviously you mean inciting, but I got a kick out of the way you actually wrote it.

Journalists licking Obamas boots (2, Interesting)

hsmith (818216) | about 8 months ago | (#44599727)

Is anyone really surprised to see one kissing the drone emperors feet? When can a Nobel prize be revoked exactly?

Re:Journalists licking Obamas boots (3, Interesting)

stenvar (2789879) | about 8 months ago | (#44599881)

Why revoke it? The actions of the Nobel peace prize committee and Obama's subsequent conduct as president are a perfect microcosm of the unbridgeable gap between progressive and left-wing aspirations and reality.

We should award the Ignoble peace prize to the Nobel peace prize committee for making this point so clearly.

Re:Journalists licking Obamas boots (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#44600013)

Well, since Kissinger got to keep his, I guess a LOT more is necessary than what Obama did. Le Duc Tho at least had the guts to be honest and say "nope, thanks. I prefer to win".

And don't make me start on Arafat.

USA land of the free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599737)

and if you disagree with anything we reserve the right to shoot the F out of you

Re:USA land of the free (-1, Troll)

aliquis (678370) | about 8 months ago | (#44599851)

The funny thing is everyone got guns to protect themself from this..

So there..

Re:USA land of the free (1)

Andreas Mayer (1486091) | about 8 months ago | (#44600001)

The funny thing is everyone got guns to protect themself from this..

So, guns protect you from drone strikes?

Yeah, right ...

Re:USA land of the free (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 8 months ago | (#44600239)

I think it was more against an out of control government or lack of freedom or whatever.

Re:USA land of the free (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 8 months ago | (#44600065)

People that make ignorant statements like this reporter typically don't live long when guns are involved.

People like this talk a lot of shit, then end up dead when someone gets tired of them running their mouth. In a short period of time, this sort of trash talking ends because they get called on it.

Contrary to what you might think, the hot heads and loud mouths you are most afraid are the first ones to Darwin themselves with weapons.

what what what!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599739)

and this happened on the internets? Whats next? Pictures of scantly dressed women? We've got to do something soon!

Not offensive at all, in fact it's a great idea (-1, Troll)

slasher999 (513533) | about 8 months ago | (#44599751)

I got a chuckle out of this. Enough said.

Re:Not offensive at all, in fact it's a great idea (1)

Sique (173459) | about 8 months ago | (#44599781)

A drone is an offensive weapon. So it's offensive per definition.

Re:Not offensive at all, in fact it's a great idea (0)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 8 months ago | (#44599913)

A drone is an offensive weapon. So it's offensive per definition.

A drone is an unmanned aircraft. It's by itself not a weapon, let alone an offensive one. You can make it into one by arming it, but otherwise it is no more a weapon than a remote controlled toy aircraft is. Indeed, strictly speaking a remote controlled toy aircraft is a drone.

Re:Not offensive at all, in fact it's a great idea (1)

Sique (173459) | about 8 months ago | (#44599929)

The drone sent out to kill someone is armed. Stop trying to be rabulistic.

Re:Not offensive at all, in fact it's a great idea (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#44600017)

Want me to show you a few ways how you can turn a remote controlled aircraft into a weapon without having to "weaponize" it at all?

You can literally turn EVERYTHING into a weapon, given creativity.

And (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599765)

Al Qaeda reporter "can't wait" to justify drone strike on Barack Obama.
(Although that would make more sense as the commander in chief is an actual participant in this "War").

International "Everybody is an asshole"-Day" anyone? Effing boot-licking ignorant fascist's of all creeds gather and rejoice!

can't wait (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599769)

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.

Re:can't wait (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 8 months ago | (#44599821)

Miscreant! Racist! Don't you know that anyone who has displeased the Mighty and Fair Lord Bonobo is not to be considered human? Repent! Go to the street dressed in sack cloth and scream "Heil Bonobo!" until your throat bleeds! Or are you a republithug?

Know how you can spot an irrelevant "journalist"? (3, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 8 months ago | (#44599807)

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.

Re:Know how you can spot an irrelevant "journalist (1)

Shoten (260439) | about 8 months ago | (#44599849)

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.

Sir (I assume you're male, please forgive me if I guessed wrong), your last line appealed to me so much that I entirely forgot everything you said before it...I think it was the idea of nuking the Kardashians that made me blue screen with glee, especially in the hopes of bringing more real discourse to the public stage again.

Suggest drone strike targets here! (3, Funny)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | about 8 months ago | (#44600075)

I think it was the idea of nuking the Kardashians that made me blue screen with glee, especially in the hopes of bringing more real discourse to the public stage again.

Sounds like you have a Kickstarter project there, dude.

Personally I'd go for Justin Bieber. But only if no innocent, bystander monkeys are hurt in the process.

Re:Know how you can spot an irrelevant "journalist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599901)

Realizing that someone had lied about using a condom is hardly a "rape-after-the-fact charge".

He didn't lie about the condom. She did. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600019)

He didn't lie about the condom: he SAID he wasn't wearing one.

SHE lied about one being deliberately ripped when it was shown not only not to contain any evidence of being worn by JA but also never to have been used before.

Re:Know how you can spot an irrelevant "journalist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600031)

How do you have to take someone else's word about using a condom? It's pretty easy to verify yourself. Not mention it feels completely different for both the man and the woman.

Re:Know how you can spot an irrelevant "journalist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600087)

who really cares?

Re:Know how you can spot an irrelevant "journalist (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599973)

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.

The bloody hell you're talking about? Assange was steering the discussion towards the illegal actions of the NSA, interview after interview after interview. I am not saying you've been not paying attention, I'm saying you've been sleeping under a 1000 ton granite rock.

Re:Know how you can spot an irrelevant "journalist (1, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | about 8 months ago | (#44599997)

The bullshit questioning rubbish against Assange (no charge had been laid) is because he can't be handily moved into a US military prison without a few silly games being played due to the UK having a thing about the rule of law. It's a bit late to pretend that they are anything other than a pretext.
The depressing thing is these drone strikes are effectively the same thing as the car bomb in Washington DC that was used by the Chileans to kill off a political enemy some years back. That's what the US can turn into if it keeps going down this path. Don't get me wrong, it's a long path and the US has barely set foot on it while the Russians are happily running down it killing people with rare poisons as a calling card, but the path leads to the sort of horrors we associate with the worst bits of the third world.

On the slippery slope (5, Insightful)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | about 8 months ago | (#44600305)

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.

Re:Know how you can spot an irrelevant "journalist (0)

ImOuttaHere (2996813) | about 8 months ago | (#44600005)

What is wrong with America? Kill the messenger because nobody wants to face one (of too many) ugly truth about American "freedom?" What an insane place to live. Why not realize the power of truth and actively work to change whatever is wrong? Oops. Sorry. Too hard. Might require someone put down the video game controller and care about something more than just themselves... Character assassination. Yes. That's a far easier thing to implement in America. Real change will have to wait for future generations (like when people might actually wake up and realize that we're all in this together).

Like Baby Bush (aka: Commander Codpiece) said, "the Constitution is just a piece of paper."

...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.

Re:Know how you can spot an irrelevant "journalist (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 8 months ago | (#44600115)

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?

Maybe the hypothetical drone strike is suitable punishment for jumping bail in the UK?

Re:Know how you can spot an irrelevant "journalist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600127)

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?

Wherever American conservatives gather in sufficient numbers.

Who decides? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599887)

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.

Reprehensible (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599889)

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.

Re:Reprehensible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599989)

He's a reporter.
That should explain everything.

Re:Reprehensible (2, Informative)

FreeUser (11483) | about 8 months ago | (#44600063)

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), far right (faux journalists at fox, etc.).

FTFY

The media in the US is by and large very conservative. The "liberal" media is a myth, the US media is anything but liberal, particularly the news media.

Re:Reprehensible (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600179)

you are kidding right?? the same media that never calls out obama on anything?? sure fox is right and talk radio is right but the majority of the media is run by the left,

Re:Reprehensible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600311)

You still don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter if the perceived political leanings of major media is left or right. That only clouds the real, actual issues. While you bicker about this being left and that being right, the powers that be merrily soldiers on, content with the likes of you focusing on things that do not matter.

In short, people like you are the reason that we have gotten ourselves into the mess we're in, and that there is no apparent way out of it in the foreseeable future.

Good job. Some day, you might want to wake up.

Re:Reprehensible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600101)

ok, we got your opinion as a former soldier.
Now what are your opinions as a human being, a mammal and a multi-cellular organism?

Re:Reprehensible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600207)

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.

Lets not forget the far right... although short of shooting them full of thorazine there is probably no way of making them behave.

Re:Reprehensible (1)

FunPika (1551249) | about 8 months ago | (#44600317)

I doubt that will ever happen. The media companies will just sink plenty of money into arguing that such a regulation would be a violation of the First Amendment in court.

Incitement to Murder and terrorist crime (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44599903)

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/ [time.com]
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.

Re:Incitement to Murder and terrorist crime (1)

Teun (17872) | about 8 months ago | (#44600151)

Well spoken AC.

This type of behaviour is unacceptable for a reporter and journalist as it is for the publication he works for.

Everything you need to know about this (5, Insightful)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 8 months ago | (#44599977)

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ [umanitoba.ca]

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?

Re:Everything you need to know about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600209)

Wow. I expected to find something interesting at that link, but I was blown away with the level of delusion and ignorance. Turns out the left may really be as bat shit crazy as the right wing radio hosts all say.

The usual test balloon? (5, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#44600033)

"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...

Re:The usual test balloon? (1)

Teun (17872) | about 8 months ago | (#44600183)

What to expect from a population that took the wholly undemocratic and likely illegal actions from their government lying down?

At least the people of the Arab world followed the lead of a desperate street merchant and fought oppression during the Arab Spring, even more has to happen before the overdue Western Spring is to come about.

Re:The usual test balloon? (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#44600243)

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.

Time has been a joke for decades. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 months ago | (#44600109)

So it seems that Time has gone to only hiring minimum wage reporters now, Did they pick this guy from a local restaurant that was their waiter?

Re:Time has been a joke for decades. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600301)

A reporter Michael Grunwald ? That's funny.
Here's a blessing for Michael:
May you always piss into the wind.
May the road drop before you.
May the birds shit warmth upon your face,
May you one day stop being an ass-hole.

Wow... (4, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | about 8 months ago | (#44600235)

He must be a huge asshole. And a horrible human being. Why isn't he already working for Fox?

Being way to nice on a Traitor. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44600241)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...