You're right: Clinton-appointed, Sonya Sotomayor-endorsing former Yale Law dean Guido Calabresi and Clinton-appointed, Ricci v. Destefano-serving, press-defending Robert Sack are obviously conservative activists hellbent on subverting our first amendment rights. And smuggling a message from a terrorist organization into a lockdown facility to be read by the convicted head of said terrorist organization, then helping to convey a message back to said terrorist organization that "permission is given to fight, because they are wronged ... and verily God is most powerful for their aid", after signing statements acknowledging restrictions (put in place under Clinton) against conveying communications designed to prevent exactly this sort of message, then lying about it, under oath, should absolutely be protected first amendment speech. This is just like what Hitler did, that one time.
@Astigmatism: Yeah, I'm all "power to the people," and as a lawyer myself, don't like the thought of lawyers being sent to jail for specious reasons. But she blatantly violated government restrictions on her representation and then lied about it. Any lawyer that has ever represented anyone in federal court, criminal or civil, knows you do not fuck with the feds like that. She wasn't naive; she was stupid.
@econdave: From a 2007 NYTimes article: Her main regret was having been unaware that the government was secretly taping her conversations with Mr. Rahman, she said.
That's only slightly less stupid than saying her main regret was getting caught.
I really thought that this Stewart business would be dropped once Bush was out of office.
Maybe the JD is thinking that they would be better off with Stewart in jail rather than allowing her to open a big ol' can of lititgation whoop-ass on them for trampling on everyone's civil rights for short of 8 years.
She is a pain in the ass, but certainly not one to abet terrorists.
Good work, Mr. Cook. There are some in this thread and in other threads who are criticizing you for devoting so much effort to painting Nidal Hassan as something other than a terrorist. I, for one, haven't come to this conclusion. You certainly aren't engaging in that kind of supposed moralizing here. You are simply calling out a well-known journalist who regularly appears on a nationally-televised nightly news program for a misleading, poorly-sourced, and potentially inflammatory report. It's received widespread attention and has already been misappropriated by those who would like use this incident as evidence for a broader Islamist conspiracy. It's unlikely that Ross will retract the story or even deign to provide any clarification. If the mainstream media refuses to enforce the necessary journalistic accountability, then at least we have lowly bloggers like you to point out the inconsistencies. #nidalmalikhasan
Your nitwitted nit-pickery is awesome. The guy shot and killed over a dozen people. He did it in the name of Islam. He reached out to a radical cleric in Yemen. He's part of the storm on the horizon. Cry to Keith Olbermann, maybe you can get on MSNBC. #nidalmalikhasan
@HandsomeBwonderful: Hey thanks for calling me awesome! "He reached out to a radical cleric in Yemen" is actually an accurate statement. Congratulations--you're a better reporter than Brian Ross. #nidalmalikhasan
@HandsomeBwonderful: I figure starred commenters should actually be readers of the site, and if you read the site, you'd know that myself and many other Gawker writers have repeatedly criticized and mocked Keith Olbermann and that Gawker has been repeatedly attacked by him. #nidalmalikhasan
@HandsomeBwonderful: Accuracy is important. Misinformation and misleading is just wrong. Remember when Judith Miller of the NYT reported that she had multiple persons reporting that they had found WMDs. Over 100,000 deaths later, and there are no WMDs. Words are important - they are tools to mislead in Brian Ross' hands.
Plus, if that is your only way to define a terrorist, then we are ALL terrorists. You are an assumed Christian Terrorist. Didn't you sneer at the Muslims?
There is a clear definition of "terrorism"; please don't try to redefine words so that they meet your small view of the world.
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
For some reason, Stewart thought she was above the law. She has no one but herself to blame.
11/18/09
That's only slightly less stupid than saying her main regret was getting caught.
[www.nytimes.com]
11/18/09
Maybe the JD is thinking that they would be better off with Stewart in jail rather than allowing her to open a big ol' can of lititgation whoop-ass on them for trampling on everyone's civil rights for short of 8 years.
She is a pain in the ass, but certainly not one to abet terrorists.
11/12/09
#tips
#terrorism
#terrorists
#fearmongering
#wingnuts
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/13/09
Plus, if that is your only way to define a terrorist, then we are ALL terrorists. You are an assumed Christian Terrorist. Didn't you sneer at the Muslims?
There is a clear definition of "terrorism"; please don't try to redefine words so that they meet your small view of the world.
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09