Awards they couldn’t accept: The tragic irony of Greenwald, Poitras and Snowden - by Jesselyn Radack

[kpete]

TUESDAY, DEC 17, 2013 08:43 AM PST
Awards they couldn’t accept: The tragic irony of Greenwald, Poitras and Snowden
When I was honored as a top global thinker last week, 3 of my co-recipients didn't come. The reason why is chilling
JESSELYN RADACK


Awards they couldn't accept: The tragic irony of Greenwald, Poitras and Snowden


I was humbled to have dinner in Washington, D.C., last week with an incredible group of my co-recipients recognized in Foreign Policy magazine’s 2013 list of leading global thinkers. Conspicuously absent in the category of “The Surveillance State and Its Discontents” were the discontents: Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Edward Snowden — not because they did not want to attend but because these three American global thinkers are unwelcome in the United States.

Greenwald has been accused of being a co-conspirator to break the law. The U.S. government has regularly harassed, searched and intimidated documentary filmmaker Poitras at the border. And the U.S. government revoked Edward Snowden’s passport.

Greenwald, Poitras and Snowden are on a growing list of journalists, activists and whistle-blowers who are unable to travel freely because of their First Amendment-protected activities. Their fears of persecution are sadly not exaggerated. The United Kingdom detained Greenwald’s husband, Brazilian David Miranda, for nine hours and charged him with violating an anti-terrorism law because he had met with Poitras and carried information (not some illegal substance or terrorist plans) for Greenwald. WikiLeaks journalist Sarah Harrison, who literally rescued whistle-blower Snowden from Hong Kong, has been advised by her attorneys not to return home to the U.K. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has long been the target of a U.S. criminal investigation, and was forced to seek asylum from Ecuador, but cannot get there.

The U.S. has promised not to torture Snowden, but such a “promise” only raises the question: Is that how low a democracy should set the bar — at not torturing someone — rather than providing due process and abiding by international humanitarian standards? The Obama administration’s aggressive prosecution of whistle-blowers under the Espionage Act and willingness to embroil journalists in “leak” investigations and prosecutions casts doubt on the legitimacy of the criminal justice system.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/17/awards_they_couldnt_accept_the_tragic_irony_of_greenwald_poitras_and_snowden/

[Blue_Tires]

1. I'm pretty sure Greenwald could care less about the award

after getting "snubbed" by Time for person of the year...Sort of like missing out on the Oscars only to win a Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Award....

[brush]

2. Not a fan of either but don't you mean Snowden missing out not Greenwald? nt

[sabrina 1]

3. I doubt Greenwald, an intelligent man, ever expected any awards from our propaganda machine.

And I think he would be highly complimented to receive an award from a far more credible publication.

Not a very informed comment from you.

[Blue_Tires]

4. I'm just basing that comment on Greenwald's own pissed-off tweets from a week ago...

For someone who didn't expect or care about any award, it at least seemed the Time thing was important enough for him to mention...

[sabrina 1]

5. We are all 'pissed off' about the phoniness of the Corporate Media and I'm guessing since I haven't

read his tweets, that it was more in that vein, than any disappointment about something anyone who knows as much about the Corporate Media as he does, at not being recognized by them.

But post some of the tweets and I will make my own judgement as to what he was talking about. I've seen so much 'interpretations' of what people who oppose the security state have actually said, that unless I see them for myself, I reserve judgement.

[Blue_Tires]

6. here you go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024162400

[sabrina 1]

7. Thanks, just as I thought. You stated above that HE had been 'snubbed by Time'.

Which led me to believe HE had been nominated. But it was Snowden who was nominated and as I thought, Greenwald is merely restating his opinion of the Corporate Media and offering his opinion as to why they would not have had the courage to nominate Snowden. Doesn't seem pissed off on his own behalf. That has always been his position on the Corporate Media.

Regarding Time's final choice, I kind of agree with it since this Pope has spoken out against Predatory Capitalism and admonished members of his own Church for their lack of Christian values regarding the poor.

However, if the award is based on who had the most impact on the world, at this point I would have to say Snowden but he was a runner up, so it's fine by me.

[Blue_Tires]

8. Seems to me at least that he badly wanted a win-by-proxy

and the obvious question is if the award was "a meaningless award from a meaningless magazine", what would Greenwald's response have been had Snowden won?

[sabrina 1]

9. Well, it seems to me he didn't expect it from Time but if it had happened, I imagine his opinion

of them would have, justifiably, improved.

What he wants and what he expected are two different things. His expectations turned out to be correct.