It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another Priest Class Lawyer Selling the Public on Civil Rights

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Salon.com features an OP ED piece in their most recent issue written by Glenn Greenwald who fancies himself a "constitutional" (the lower case c is how it is written in Wikipedia) and "civil rights litigator", who now seems content to blogging for Salon.com and shoving his priest class lawyer mystical incantations down the the throats of the American laity. The OP ED piece is titled:

The Tea Party and Civil Liberties

The editorial begins:


It's long been clear that the best (and perhaps only) political hope for civil liberties in the U.S. is an alliance that transcends the standard Democrat v. GOP or left v. right dichotomies. Last night's surprising (and temporary) failure of the House to extend some of the most controversial powers of the Patriot Act -- an extension jointly championed by the House GOP leadership and the Obama White House -- perfectly illustrates why this is true.


While Greenwald seems to want to ingratiate his readers with the acknowledgment that the two party system is a part of the problem, he right off the bat lets us know that he has been ordained an American lawyer and as such if we are to listen, or read, any of his sermons we must necessarily bend down before the alter of civil liberties. Greenwald continues with this sentence:


The establishments of both political parties -- whether because of actual conviction or political calculation -- are equally devoted to the National Security State, the Surveillance State, and the endless erosions of core liberties they entail.


Even the use of "liberties" is insidious when uttered by a mystic lawyer preaching the gospel of civil liberties. Liberty can be equated with freedom, or it can be equated with allowance depending upon who is using the term. When in the military, a solider has no freedom, but will be granted liberty on occasion.

The sentence I just quoted above begins the second paragraph and that paragraph ends with this sentence:


The war on civil liberties in the U.S. is a fully bipartisan endeavor, and no effective opposition is possible through fealty to either of the two parties.


What disingenuous hoo haw coming from a front line soldier in the war on unalienable rights that are acknowledged, many enshrined, and protected in the very Constitution Glenwald claims to be a litigant for. While Greenwald laments peoples loss of civil rights, I continue to lament the sound trampling of unalienable rights that have been trampled upon for over a century, possibly longer, and largely due to clowns like Greenwald who belong to the priest class lawyer set.

As long as people keep insisting on holding civil rights above unalienable rights, and worse failing to recognize the difference then freedom is truly just another word for nothing left to lose. Greenwald, later in his vile opinion states:


What has been most needed -- and most harmfully non-existent -- is some minimal amount of intellectual honesty and consistency from America's conservatives, whose rhetoric of "limited government" and "individual rights" has translated into nothing other than lockstep support for ever-increasing government power and a highly authoritarian political mindset. It is that dynamic that has marginalized civil liberties advocacy -- and rendered civil liberties erosions inevitable -- no matter which party is in control.


Hey Glenn, you want some intellectual honesty from a conservative? How about this for honest; take your legally granted civil rights and shove them up your pampered ass! You have the audacity to link Ron Paul to civil liberties, you pathetic clown? Do you honestly think genuine conservatives cannot see through your mysticism? When you speak of conservatives, what you really mean is Republican as opposed to Democrat. You whine and you huff and you puff with paragraphs like this:


There are so many examples proving how true that is, but just look at the current "controversy" over extension of these Patriot Act provisions. The three provisions set to expire -- the "roving" wiretaps, the authority to surveil individuals with no connection to Terrorist groups (the "lone wolf" provision), and the power to obtain "any tangible items" (the "library records" power) -- have a long history of serious abuse. These provisions were supposed to be temporary, emergency measures hastily enacted in the wake of the 9/11 attack with virtually no oversight. Even the Congress acting in the immediate aftermath of those attacks realized how extreme they were, and thus imposed "sunset provisions" requiring their expiration and renewal after several years. But every time they've been considered in the past 10 years, they've been extended with the full support of both parties, without any added oversight provisions or limits; not even incontrovertible evidence of systematic abuse has generated any meaningful opposition.


But you apparently think acting as a litigant attempting to pull the reins on a government intent on trampling over peoples rights is not nearly as worthy as blogging for an internet news site. You apparently think that all you have to do is keep repeating the codewords "civil liberties" ad nauseum and this will somehow make you appear to be a genuine good guy. You're a poser Glenn Greenwald, and a very dangerous one at that. How's that for intellectual honesty?

The attack on freedom and the rights of the individual have been going on for much longer than the creation of the Patriot Act, and all along the way, this attack, this audacious and violent charge against freedom has been led by lawyers. American lawyers have so become a venerable part of the church they are ordained under that they have no more interest in vigorously and zealously defending a client against the machinery of the state and all too often begin straight away by turning to the state to begin the bargaining process for a plea bargain.

For the American people, in this current political climate, turning to a lawyer for protection against the state is tantamount to turning to the mob for protection against the mafia. You'll get some facsimile of protection, not much, but be rest assured you will pay through the nose for it.




new topics
 
7

log in

join