cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/15786121
The Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald takes on famed lawyer and author Alan Dershowitz.
Professor and legal scholar Alan Dershowitz and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald debate the resolution, “The U.S. should strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
Taking the affirmative is Dershowitz, an American lawyer and law professor known for his work in U.S. constitutional law and American criminal law. From 1964 to 2013, he taught at Harvard Law School, where he was appointed as the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law in 1993. He is the author of several books about politics and the law, including The Case for Israel, and The Case for Peace. His two most recent works are The Case Against Impeaching Trump, and Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo. In January 2020, he joined President Donald Trump’s legal team as Trump was being tried on impeachment charges in the Senate. He is a strong supporter of Israel, self-identifing as both “pro-Israel and pro-Palestine.”
Taking the negative is Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer, investigative journalist, and best-selling author. Acclaimed as one of the 25 most influential political commentators by The Atlantic, one of America’s top 10 opinion writers by Newsweek, and one of the Top 100 Global Thinkers for 2013 by Foreign Policy, Greenwald has won the highest awards in journalism, including the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for the NSA-Snowden revelations.
This debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.
Chapters:
- 00:00:00 Introduction
- 00:02:06 Dershowitz’s Opening Statement
- 00:19:43 Greenwald’s Opening Statement
- 00:37:48 Dershowitz’s Rebuttal
- 00:45:27 Greenwald’s Rebuttal
- 00:53:56 Q&A
- 01:35:08 Dershowitz’s Summation
- 01:40:22 Greenwald’s Summation
I can’t think of two people I’d rather hear from more than these two gentlemen. /s
Well, one is an accomplished independent journalist that does not follow the status quo, while the other is a status quo pro war person that profits from war…
Yeah, I think “actively supported Trump’s attempted coup” goes a bit beyond that
The problem with Greenwald is that he seems to have staked his whole reputation on being anti-status quo instead of pro-truth, which has already put him on the wrong side of history on a number of issues.
That is another major problem we should take to account when talking with people.
What is “truth” when we know legacy media is just a stooge of the owner class… we must continue to question and be critical of those with power/influence and esp. those in gov’t.
Just looking at opensecrets we can see who is being being legally bried.
I disagree with this, and I would go farther that he has shown great moral principles over his many decades of journalism.
Yeah, Glenn is a joke at this point. Absolutely dedicated to living in narratives rather than facts.
Edit: improved wording, a bit
I disagree, I think he is one of a handful of independent journalists that have kept to their morals and are brave of what they speak of.
Not too many people are willing to go against the status quo, even when he knows he is making enemies of those that control our societies, the owner class.; which in turn gets those that try to work and are for the status quo to make smears so as to try to discredit his work.
There’s nothing wrong with going against the status quo. It’s when you let the anti-establishment narrative supersede facts that we have a problem. This guy defended the Jan 6 riots on extremely flimsy ground (his thesis falls in line with the rest of conservatives: that it was a peaceful demonstration that got out of hand). Not only that, but he goes to bat for Trump pretty often, of all people. It’s par the course for the rest of the anti-establishment enlightened centrists (see Pin Tool and the likes). Not impressed.
Seems that is what the status quo and legacy media was saying about other protests going on in the past and currently, just take a look at Black Lives Matter and Anti-Genocide protests.
Major difference is that social media has had a great impact against what the propaganda machine tries to push, but do not forget, these are also being censored by gov’t and the owner class to a certain degree.
He is going after specifics not only just because he is Trump… I would take another look at what he was explaining when talking about Trump.
Many of his points will be push back at the general propaganda and smears our politicians and legacy media is enforcing on us so as to try to sway the working class toward the status quo.
That is why there is an increase of people that do not believe anything that politicians or legacy media spews to the working class.
Not too sure what you mean by this or the people you meantioned?
Enlighten centrists, not sure how he would fit that label…
Here are some videos about Glenn, seems to still be keeping his morals till this day as well.
Glenn Greenwald: Media “tragically vindicated” Trump by overhyping Russiagate [03:47 | Mar 25 19 | Democracy Now!] https://youtu.be/qdYw6jk3TTA
Glenn Greenwald on Trump-Russia Probe: Be Skeptical of Spy Agencies with History of Lying & Deceit [11:11 | JHan 02 18 | Democracy Now!] https://youtu.be/AYq67tTf0KY
Anytime someone equivocates between Jan 6 and BLM -or any other riots for that matter- it makes me lose all respect for them. There was damage from BLM protests, sure. But Jan 6 was a violent insurrection into what is the most important day in our electoral process: the day when the peaceful transfer of power is meant to occur and anyone trying to draw parallels between that and BLM rioters is actively engaged in subverting our democracy. You can whine about media obfuscation all day long, but we all saw the video footage and we all knew what day of the year it was.
Yeah, the anti-establishment schtick is getting old. Glenn is part of the fraternity of ultimate skeptics -when it’s convenient, of course. And frankly, the theatrics are getting old. Not interested.
Edit: improved wording, a bit
Yes, I also saw what legacy media release and what other independent media release.
Similar to all protests, the people breaking the law are to be punished and all that, but do not forget that they are usually really small percentage of these people that are violent, when comparing a few violent people to the full size of the protest.
Not sure what you mean by this… it may just be our political bubbles that make it difficult to understand each other at a quick matter and just with a few replies and comments.
I do not support or am a part of the duopoly, so that will also differ a lot on how we view gov’t and the people that control our politicians, the owner class.
I am more of a revolutionary than a reformist, so that is a major difference we have.
In a simple to understand and basic outline, I see Jan. 06 event, IMO, as an unorganized riot similar to when a certain sports team losses and they go ham at what is near by, only a few are extremly violent while letting out frustration.
Few or little of the protestors were openly showing their 2A given rights, compared to how the Black Panther Parties would be in the presence of police and and other gov’t dogs that do their bidding.
The Black Panther Party is a greater group I would align with than the unorganized Jan. 06 riots that were gov’t backlash.
Sadly, the Black Panthers and many great activists that fight against the status quo are killed or under great surveillance by our fascist government and police state.
No, they were not a “small percentage” of individuals that got violent. Nice try.
They were expressly there to stop the count of the electoral votes cast while Trump and his cronies orchestrated false slate of electors at the ready to replace the votes in several states. Also, let me repeat, because I don’t think it’s sinking in: These were not some disenfranchised activists on a random protest. They were there on the most important day of the year during the most critical part of the electoral process: the peaceful transfer of power. During this whole time, Trump resisted calling in the national guard so that his false slate of electors could pass through and overturn the vote.
That’s who Glenn is defending.