In 2005, Glenn Greenwald was the lawyer for Matthew Hale, a convicted white supremacist.

[baldguy]

He defended Hale for soliciting the murder of a federal judge and members of her family:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-09-hale_x.htm?csp=34

Glenn is such a stand-up guy.

[TransitJohn]

1. Kind of a disgusting post.

Have your paymasters not relented on their demand to smear the publicizer of the NSA illegal spying program?

[Buzz Clik]

40. Sorry, but your post is equally disgusting.

[Marr]

85. I disagree. This bottom-of-the-barrel character assassination reads exactly like the

kind of clumsy mudslinging that the professional smear outlets come up with. And considering the fact that Greenwald was also the one who that leaked HB Gary smear campaign from a few years ago was targeting, it's perfectly reasonable to make note of the familiar scent.

[Buzz Clik]

88. We'll call it a tie. But, I am curious:

"professional smear outlets"

Can you tell me more about these?

[ZombieHorde]

126. FOX News may be one. nt

[Mojorabbit]

105. Yes it does!

I actually LOL'd at this ridiculous attempt.

[pnwmom]

92. It's not a smear if there's no mud to smear with. A private defense lawyer

doesn't have to represent every white supremacist who walks through the door.

[cali]

106. and the ACLU didn't have to defend the Skokie Nazis

this is supremely silly. but then you posted the anti-vaxxer nonsense.

[The Link]

2. Keep trying.

[Buzz Clik]

38. +1

[NoPasaran]

3. Even bad people are entitled to legal representation

And no Greenwald fan I.

[woo me with science]

9. The despicable propaganda machine

is counting on Americans' having been taught so little civics that they don't know that.

I think if anyone doubted before how creepy and authoritarian our government has become under corporate rule, the relentless, lying, smearing Orwellian propaganda assaults of the past few weeks, here and across the internet, have changed that.

States that build surveillance infrastructures also build propaganda infrastructures. Every single American should be chilled and horrified by the scope and depth and relentlessness of the smear machine against critics of the state.

[laundry_queen]

122. +1 nt

[Kolesar]

82. That's what makes us civilized

I am on record as not being a fan of Greenwald.

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. Everyone gets counsel. The Constituon guaranfuckingtees it.

I don't expect people like you to be too pro-Constitution though.

I guess every counselor who defends a bad guy should slink away and disappear in your world. That about right, Slick?

[msanthrope]

45. Show me where in the Constitution it guarantees an attorney for a civil matter?

Greenwald took on Hale representation over a trademark matter between two competing neo-nazi groups.

[naaman fletcher]

56. So, it's also fair to say then

The Greenwald opposed a neo nazi group in this case?

[cherokeeprogressive]

70. It would seem thus... so vehemently opposed that he used unethical means and violated

civil rights to defeat the neo-nazis.

The unethical actions and civil rights violations claims come directly from msanthrope's own post.

I for one find it hard to fathom that given the gravity and scope of his heinous violations, he wasn't at the very least disbarred and at the worst incarcerated for a very long time.

[msanthrope]

128. On behalf of a neo-Nazi. And lost. nt

[Jim Lane]

110. The Constitution protects your right to denounce lawyers for doing their job.

There is, however, a strong current of thought in the United States, dating back to before Glenn Greenwald was born, that supports the right to counsel, that opposes the direct curtailment of that right by any prohibition on having a lawyer, and that also opposes the indirect curtailment of that right by those who would heap obloquy on the lawyer and hope by that means to leave a vilified person unable to find counsel.

As for your repeated reference to the initial Hale matter being civil rather than criminal, please see my response in #109.

[adric mutelovic]

5. Thanks! This proves the NSA is not spying on us

I can talk on the phone freely and google anything without fear, now that you have broken the news that Glenn Greenwald represented Matthew Hale.

[Matariki]

58. lol

exactly.

[Smarmie Doofus]

86. +1. To the point. n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

98. Whew. That's a relief.

[MNBrewer]

6. And the ACLU defended the First Amendment rights of NAZIs.

What's your point?

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. Thus, Obama does not spy on the American people and the NSA are breaking no laws!

Thank you, how reassuring! Everything's NICE again.

[sibelian]

8. Grotesque.

Keep 'em coming. It's getting clearer and clearer.

[adric mutelovic]

10. It's getting clearer and clearer that the NSA isn't spying on us?

Or what.

[sibelian]

18. :)

Other side, dude.

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. Desperater and desperater LOL. n/t

[SidDithers]

12. And he acted unethically while serving as defense counsel...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

Sid

[baldguy]

15. Is this why he had to stop being a real lawyer to start calling himself a "journalist"?

[SidDithers]

19. No, I think it just shows that he wasn't much of a lawyer...

Curious that he's up in arms about secret surveillance now, when he secretly taped witnesses during the Hale trial.

Sid

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. He wasn't disbarred for civil rights violations?

Not disbarred for ethical misconduct?

Why not?

[MNBrewer]

27. Maybe it's made up?

[SidDithers]

30. It's not...

But you can believe it is, if it helps preserves your image of St. Glenn.

Sid

[SidDithers]

28. I don't know...nt

Sid

[MADem]

100. According to the NY bar association, he is "suspended," not "disbarred."

It doesn't say what he did to cause them to take that action, though, so I don't know if this was the offense in question.

[MNBrewer]

52. You forgot to quote this bit, Sid

"Given the rhetoric in the papers filed with respect to this difficult ethical question, we wish to clarify one last matter. We are applying rules here, not judging character. As the magistrate judge noted, although ultimately unsuccessful, defendants' arguments were reasonable. Defense counsel could have reasonably believed that his conduct was permissible. Although we find that his conduct did violate the rules, our rejection of his position does not equate to an indictment as an unethical person."

But if you want to go on considering Glenn Greenwald the devil incarnate, don't let that stop you.

[SidDithers]

61. And, as msanthrope said in he other thread...

"Yes. Being told you are not so much unethical as incompetent is something every lawyer clings to."



Sid

[MNBrewer]

64. Well,my valuation of misanthrope's opinions is about as high as of yours.

but don't let the findings that he's not unethical slow down your smear machine. Keep chugging away, Sid.

[SidDithers]

67. Yeah, we all know you got locked out of that thread for your opinion of msanthrope...

But hey, if "incompetent" instead of "unethical" helps you sleep at night, more power to you.

Sid

[MNBrewer]

69. I stand by it.

[ohheckyeah]

13. Desperation is

so unbecoming.

[woo me with science]

14. So you oppose the right to counsel

guaranteed by the Constitution?

This is the lowest, most cynical, most despicable attempt at smear yet.

But what a perfect exposure of the absolute contempt for the Constitution held by those who would defend the surveillance state.

[msanthrope]

35. Describe the right to counsel for a civil matter. Trademark was the first case for Hale

that Greenwald undertook.

[woo me with science]

48. Shame on you. Just shame on you.

If this were a situation in which you were not cynically invested in smearing the whistleblower, you would be making soaring speeches about how our system of justice needs attorneys to be available on both sides, whether the case is civil *or* criminal. If attorneys stopped taking cases because they disapproved of their clients, we would not have a system of justice in this country.

By the way, Greenwald declined to represent him in the criminal case. Do you love him now?

[msanthrope]

125. Oh please...the system does not need attorneys to represent neo-Nazis

who have been to law school themselves in a trademark mattter. Civil representation over property between neo-nazi group is a purely discretionary matter. as for not representing him in the criminal case I suspect it's because Mr Greenwald is not a criminal attorney. he also violated the SAMS that Mr hale was under at the time so I suspect for the representation of him would have been quite difficult.

[woo me with science]

131. You really can't sink much lower with this smearing garbage.

Attorneys in this thread who have been critical of Snowden are expressing their disgust at these tactics. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[Waiting For Everyman]

16. I have no problem with Glenn.

I've read a lot of his writing, and I think he's very good at it. And from what I've seen, he has a lot of integrity. Case in point, I thought his series just after 9/11 on the Anthrax investigation at Fr. Detrick was very well done, insightful, and yes courageous.

[quinnox]

17. I didn't realize defense lawyers are also considered guilty of whatever cases they take

Wow, a lot of defense lawyers gotta a lot of explaining to do. These dudes are defending murderers, rapists, terrorists etc.

[Link Speed]

34. You know, neither did I

I learn something new almost every day.

[msanthrope]

39. Tell us how a trademark case is a criminal matter? Because that was the original

representation Greenwald took on....a trademark case between two neo-Nazi groups.

[quinnox]

43. if you think the OP makes a good argument, you may be suffering from “GDS“

also known as Greenwald Derangement Syndrome. Doctors are working on a cure, so there is hope!

[cherokeeprogressive]

71. So he opposed a neo-Nazi group then? n/t

[msanthrope]

124. On behalf of a neo-Nazi. And lost. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

130. That's a yes.

[leftstreet]

20. Glenn Greenwald broke my pencil n/t

[treestar]

21. That client should sue for malpractice

Glenn doesn't get the legal system - don't know how he passed the bar. He's going on now as if he forgot it all, including the fundamentals.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

22. so, WTF does that have to do with the MASSIVE SPYING by our Government?

Take your time...

[KittyWampus]

24. That's what lawyers do.

[BlueCheese]

132. Thank you for your principled post.

I mean that sincerely.

[LittleBlue]

25. Ignore

Disgusting propaganda. That's the last I'll see of you.

[Savannahmann]

26. So while you have the right to an attorney

They better not take the case. What nation do you think this is?

[msanthrope]

42. You have a right to an attorney in a civil case? His first representation of Hale was

for a trademark matter.

[Savannahmann]

51. Yes.

You do have a right to an attorney. You realize that attorneys flocked to represent Saddam. You know that there was an attorney representing Randy Weaver in both his criminal and civil cases.

You might want to read the Constitution again. Pay close attention to the 6th and 7th Amendment. Fascinating stuff.

[msanthrope]

127. There's no right to an attorney in a civil matter. nt

[Savannahmann]

139. Tell that to the other party

Because they will certainly have one. Yes, you have the right to an attorney during a civil trial. Civil trials are where we won most of the civil rights we are outraged are being violated now. Lawyers took unpopular cases, and argued them to the Supreme Court, to get our civil rights. You can't deny someone a lawyer, and you can't blame the lawyer for arguing the case. That is their job. They are supposed to represent their clients to the best of their ability. Not all of them are able to argue Jones V. Mayer Co. But all of them will argue to the best of their ability. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=392&invol=409

Most lawyers will turn cases away that have a sigma, but most will take the case, because there is a constitutional duty, an oath to represent their clients. Now, you might not like it. In that case, I suggest you follow Shakespeare's suggestion and kill all the lawyers first. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/17/nyregion/l-kill-the-lawyers-a-line-misinterpreted-599990.html

BTW, that quote, was from someone who wanted to install a totalitarian society, and knew that the lawyers and judges would prevent him.

They may be expensive, and they may be annoying, and they may be a lot of things. But a lawyer will represent you, no matter what kind of immoral a hole you might be. You are allowed a lawyer, and entitled to a lawyer, and if you think you can represent yourself, there is another quote that comes to mind.

[RainDog]

29. so you dislike the right to a fair trial?

that's mighty fascist of you.

[truebluegreen]

31. Ridiculous post.

[premium]

32. So?

So is Gerry Spence a bad guy also for defending Randy Weaver, White Separatist?

Glenn Greenwald was doing what a lawyer is supposed to do, defend your client, no matter how repugnant their views.

Can't dismiss the message, so go after the messenger.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. What a filthy, undemocratic and vile sentiment this post expresses.

I am happy to see that Americans posting in the thread reject this horrible mindset.

[woo me with science]

59. [phone]

If anyone doubted before how creepy and authoritarian our government has become under corporate rule, the relentless, lying, smearing Orwellian propaganda assaults of the past few weeks have changed that.

Garbage like this is everywhere, all across the internet. It is nothing short of chilling.

[Marr]

83. +1

I really think the smear brigade has been too ham handed on this one from the beginning. They look ridiculous.

[Oilwellian]

36. ROFL

This post is unfuckingbelievable. Good God. Get a grip and step away from the computer for a while. Breath deeply. Take your dog for a walk. Think before you post another absurdity.

[quinnox]

37. I think the OP may be suffering from "Greenwald Derangement Syndrome"

[cherokeeprogressive]

73. It would seem that the OP has cut and run. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

41. -1

I hate this shit.

[Vinnie From Indy]

44. Hard to know how to reply to such bullshit!

In all my years here at DU I have never used ignore. The OP in this case is so over the top that I am as close as I have ever been to making him the very first for me. In my mind this post is worthy of having the OP tombstoned. Not my call, but that is my feeling. To say I loathe people like the OP is an understatement.

[DefenseLawyer]

46. Just for the record, I've represented hundreds of really bad people in my 19 years

as a criminal defense attorney. I make no apologies for that to you or anyone else. I've that means I'm not a "stand-up guy" in your world, then so be it.

[MotherPetrie]

47. Obama's DOJ refuses to prosecute war and Wall Street criminals. Obama named John Brennan, a torture

supporter in the Bush administration, to his own administration. I could go on.

I say this not to defend Glenn Greenwald -- just to point out that nobody has clean hands.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. And, Lincoln once defended a man who killed dog.

http://www.coachwhipbooks.com/chapters/lincoln-stories/lincoln-lawyer.html

An anecdote is related in connection with a case involving a bodily attack. Mr. Lincoln defended, and told the jury that his client was in the plight of a man who, in going along the highway with a pitchfork over his shoulder, was attacked by a fierce dog that ran out at him from a farmer's door-yard. In warding off the brute with the fork its prongs pierced and killed him.

"What made you kill my dog?" said the farmer.

"What made him bite me?"

"But why did you not go after him with the other end of the pitchfork?"

"Why did he not come at me with his other end?"

At this Mr. Lincoln whirled about, in his long arms an imaginary dog, and pushed his tail toward the jury. This was the defensive plea of "Son assaut demesne"—loosely, that "The other fellow brought on the fight" quickly told in a way the dullest mind would grasp and retain.

[TomClash]

50. Tom Durkin, well known Chicago criminal lawyer, was originally retained

But he wouldn't sign the SAMS memo. The SAMS memo was secret and was probably a witness and gag order, a severe restriction on the Defendant's 5th Amendment Rights, almost guaranteeing conviction. Greenwald signed and gave the guy the best defense he could muster. All men and women deserve legal assistance when lying prostrate before the enormous power of the State. All, not some, no only the ones you like, not only guys with hair. ALL.

[markpkessinger]

138. +1!

[Skittles]

53. how DARE the criminally charged have lawyers

HOW DARE THEY!!!

[G_j]

54. please refrain

from relieving yourself in public.

[DCBob]

57. sounds about right..

[Matariki]

60. laughable post

nice to see you so called out that you have to hide from your own post.

[Savannahmann]

62. I'm thinking you meant to post this on one of those other sites.

Like perhaps Fascist Underground.

[Demit]

65. I'd like to add my condemnation of this post. It's disgusting.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

66. Telling thread.

So now the pro NSA spying "liberals" hate the 4th Amendment and the 6th Amendment?

[whatchamacallit]

68. Crazy huh?

[Chan790]

72. I'm usually the first one to get on GG about anything...

but I don't really have a problem with this.

Everybody is entitled to a robust and competent defense--even vermin like Matt Hale, and it's not uncommon for an attorney who both cares about and has experience in civil rights cases to take on the defense of a indefensible monster precisely because they also believe that everybody is entitled to a defense, their day in court and believing such a defendant will not get the defense they are entitled to otherwise.

[zappaman]

78. +1 n/t

[20score]

74. Gee, he must be a Jewish Nazi, then. Thanks for the info. Also, glad you proved

our government isn't spying on us. Thanks again!

Man, you should be ashamed. I'm ashamed to see this kind of crap on a website where people can supposedly think.

[Purveyor]

75. Ahhh. The smell of desperation in the evening is delightful, indeed! eom

[Marr]

76. And the character assassination sinks even further into Breitbart territory.

[cherokeeprogressive]

77. I want to thank the 5 who rec'd this for ensuring its presence on The Greatest Page. I would have

had to lend my name to it in order to guarantee it was seen by the widest audience possible and I didn't want to do that.

[neverforget]

79. Your hate for Greenwald is noted.

[ucrdem]

80. If only Dems got a tenth of the avid support RW Obama-bashers get on DU. . .

[Iggo]

81. ASSOCIATIONS!!!

[UTUSN]

84. Is his real name "denmark"? 'cause there's something rotten about him.

I'm not being sarcastic. I don't like him. I have a deep need to know why he has a deep RAGE inside him. How come a deep soul mate/love AND ten rescue dogs can't take the RAGE away?!1

[The Straight Story]

87. Have you ever heard of a news channel called CNN?

It exists.

Now I have done some negative things in my life, therefore the above cannot be true because I said it and my life should be the focus.

Two things CAN be true at a time and not cancel each other out. Kids have died because of Obama and drone strikes, so is everything he says a lie?

I feel like it is grade school time around here at times.....now excuse me while I get my happy days lunch box and have a pbj sandwich and some chicken noodle soup.

Oh, and DU is awesome and so are you (but, uh, don't believe that because I said it and am not Jesus like).

[baldguy]

89. Thank you all for proving that "**IT'S NOT ABOUT GREENWALD!!!!**" is total & complete bullshit.

If it were true this thread would have sunk like a rock.

[cherokeeprogressive]

90. Kick!

I think EVERYONE should see this kind of stupid shit.

I'm gonna kick this all week!

[RainDog]

91. you are an idiot

I haven't posted one thing here in support of Greenwald.

What people on this thread are talking about is the way you are, apparently, clueless about constitutional rights, or perhaps, with this reply, you are too stupid to understand the content of the comments here.

you are yet another person who has posted these over-the-top stupid smear threads that demonstrate your own lack of political acumen.

[baldguy]

95. I thought this wasn't about Greenwald?

[deurbano]

103. It wasn’t about Ellsberg, either, but that didn’t stop Nixon (& associates) from trying to smear him

[cherokeeprogressive]

96. ^

[Union Scribe]

104. So you posted flamebait to get a certain reaction?

Gee isn't that called trolling?

[baldguy]

118. I'm guessing your alert failed?

Too bad, so sad.

[cherokeeprogressive]

112. ^

[baldguy]

119. Thank you for keeping this kicked to show everyone what hypocrites the Snowden fans are.

[cherokeeprogressive]

123. Always a pleasure.

[WilliamPitt]

121. First Law of Holes

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

[cherokeeprogressive]

136. Kick!

[Zorra]

93. Yeah, well...I once found a sack of quarters by the side of the road.

[Marrah_G]

94. Everyone deserves a defense lawyer

[AnotherMcIntosh]

99. Those who respect the Constitution will readily disagree with you.

Sixth Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

[bravenak]

101. Wasn't he doing his job?

I don't love him or hate him. But I think that was his profession.

[cali]

102. silly op. for reasons to obvious to get into.

[Douglas Carpenter]

107. more evidence that authoritarians simply don't understand the values of western democracy

We as a free people - at least a people trying to hold on to our freedom - firmly believe that even the bad guys are entitled to a zealous defense from competent legal council. That is one of our core principles. In the same way we that we who cherish the western democratic tradition do not and will not accept a massive and all encompassing surveillance apparatus that keep track or tries to keep track of all of our communication, movements and activities. Because we know that if you abandon the right to a zealous and competent defense and accept a massive surveillance state - it will not be possible to avoid the emergence of a totalitarian system of control.

[Cali_Democrat]

108. Thanks for the link, baldguy

Ignore the haters and keep on keepin' on.

K&R

[Jim Lane]

109. The silver lining here is that so many have disagreed with you.

As a lawyer, I'm pleasantly surprised at the overwhelming show of support for right to counsel.

And, to answer msanthrope's repeated question, in civil cases the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to counsel in the sense of requiring the government to pay for counsel for the indigent (which is a requirement in any felony case, such as the one against Hale). There is, however, a right to counsel in the sense of allowing a litigant to have a lawyer if the litigant can find one.

Tell me, would you favor a law stating that white supremacists aren't allowed to be represented by lawyers in civil disputes over trademarks or contracts or automobile accidents or whatever? Do you believe that such a law would be permissible under the Constitution?

[Tseko]

111. Guilt by association?

[Iggo]

115. Yep.

He was "palling around" with nazis.

DU takes a page from the Sarah Palin book of political smearing.

Nice, huh?

[MineralMan]

113. I'm no fan of Greenwald, but this

is over the top. Lawyers represent people. That's their job. Even guilty people. Even racist assholes.

Attacking Greenwald over this is wrong.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

114. I worked for an attorney --

whose clients included Joe Bonanno, Sr., Sarah Jane Moore, and a whole lotta very guilty people sitting on Death Row.

What's that make me?

Oh yeah, that makes me a professional doing their job.

[burnodo]

116. DU is going after lawyers now?

[myrna minx]

117. What an utterly embarrassing post. This says far more about you than it does about Greenwald. Wow.

[WilliamPitt]

120. Even the Devil has the right to counsel.

Thread fail.

[struggle4progress]

129. "It's OK for ME to wiretap folk cuz I'm Glenn Greenwald!"

[Arkana]

133. John Adams defended the Boston Massacre soldiers.

Everyone's entitled to a defense.

[Zoeisright]

134. Well lookee there.

I'm not surprised.

[BlueStater]

135. And this makes the US government spying on Americans okay HOW? n/t

[markpkessinger]

137. And John Adams defended the British soldiers who carried out the Boston Massacre , , ,

. . . Does that make him evil, or any less of a patriot?

From an ACLU article on the subject:

It was the most controversial case of its day — the defense of the British soldiers accused of carrying out what would come to be known as the Boston Massacre. Amid the outrage and fury that followed the shooting, which resulted in the deaths of five colonists, one young Boston attorney courageously took the case to ensure that justice was served.

< . . . >

With a public enraged by what they saw as an act of brutality by their British occupiers, Captain Preston and his men were indicted for murder by the colonial government. Because of the virulent anti-British sentiment in Boston, no lawyers in the city would agree to defend the soldiers, believing it would be the end of their legal careers. But John Adams, an outspoken critic of the British occupation, recognized the importance of a fair trial for the accused and agreed to represent them. Adams later wrote that he risked infamy and even death, and incurred much popular suspicion and prejudice, for the sense of duty he felt to offer the British soldiers an adequate defense.

Of his decision to represent the British soldiers, Adams wrote in his diary:

"The part I took in defense of captain Preston and the soldiers, procured me anxiety, and obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country. Judgment of death against those soldiers would have been as foul a stain upon this country as the executions of the Quakers or witches, anciently.”

[Nye Bevan]

140. Attacking a lawyer for who his clients are is just pathetic. (nt)

[frylock]

141. this didn't exactly play out the way you had anticipated, did it?