This is an illuminating exchange.
It comes out of a discussion about an American citizen who has been put on a no-fly list by the US Government. He has not received an explanation as to why this decision has been made.
Commenter Keo2008 observes:
Certainly a disturbing case here- but I would want to know more before passing judgment. There seems to be nothing on Saadiq Long on the Internet and Glenn offers us no links to tell us about him. We know that people who have committed any criminal offence are routinely banned from entering the USA.
Glenn states that Saadiq (and himself of course) are absolutely flabbergasted by this incomprehnsible decision. They may be right of course- but why do I get this feeling that there may be more to this case than we have been told? To put in bluntly-why on earth would the USA ban a random totally innocent man from entering his own country on a whim?
Don’t get me wrong- I think he has the right to know why he has been banned and the right to appeal , and there is no excuse for the government not giving him the slightest indication as to why he has been banned.
But a totally random and totally innocent man chosen just because he is Muslim, when there are nearly 3 million American Muslims who are allowed to travel in and out freely…sorry I need to know more before joining in the chorus of anger at this apparently random and bizarre decision by the USA
This sets Glenn Greenwald off on a rant:
Keo2008
Certainly a disturbing case here- but I would want to know more before passing judgment. There seems to be nothing on Saadiq Long on the Internet and Glenn offers us no links to tell us about him.
First of all, there is now something “on the internet” about him: namely, what I just reported. Second, why would there be anything on him “on the Internet”? He’s an ordinary citizen, and I’m the first person to report on his case; what were you hoping to find on him?
We know that people who have committed any criminal offence are routinely banned from entering the USA.
He’s a US CITIZEN – did you miss that part?
US citizens are most certainly not “routinely banned from entering the USA”. To the contrary, US citizens have a well- and long-established right to enter the US – it’s one of the core rights of citizenship.
Glenn states that Saadiq (and himself of course) are absolutely flabbergasted by this incomprehnsible decision. They may be right of course- but why do I get this feeling that there may be more to this case than we have been told? To put in bluntly- why on earth would the USA ban a random totally innocent man from entering his own country on a whim?
Because you’ve embraced authoritarianism and thus can’t believe that the US government would discriminate against people and punish them even though they’re innocent, despite ample evidence that they’ve done exactly that over and over.
It’s precisely people like you who enable these abuses by assuming – without having to see any evidence – that anyone the US Government wants to punish must be guilty of something.
Those Japanese-Americans put in concentration camps during World War II must have been up to no good. Same with all the people the US illegally surveilled for decades for the crime of opposing US government policy.
Also, everyone at Guantanamo must have been Bad People, even though most were released without ever having been charged with anything.
After all, where the US government puts smoke, there must be fire.
Don’t get me wrong- I think he has the right to know why he has been banned and the right to appeal , and there is no excuse for the government not giving him the slightest indication as to why he has been banned.
That’s all that needs to be said by anyone who actually believes in basic freedom and the Constitution. No “but” is needed after this, and nobody who believes in those basic concepts would offer one. Of course:
But a totally random and totally innocent man chosen just because he is Muslim, when there are nearly 3 million American Muslims who are allowed to travel in and out freely…sorry I need to know more before joining in the chorus of anger at this apparently random and bizarre decision by the
Totally – it would be so unlike the US Government to single people out because of their religion or race. Why, such a thing is so completely unknown to history that it makes me want to lay down on a couch and fan myself with shock just to hear it suggested.
Listen to yourself: you’re assuming that your fellow citizens must be up to no good simply because the US government has draped them with innuendo and secret accusations. Do you really not see how pernicious that thinking is?
Keo2008 responds:
As usual Glenn reacts with fury to anyone who dares to question his articles.
Since I specifically said that he might be right, but I would like to know a bit more about this case…and since Glenn spectacularly fails to provide any additional information, I remain sceptical.
I can only repeat- there are nearly 3 million muslims who are citizens of the USA. Why would the US government pick out one at random whilst letting the others in and out. This is why the comparison with the Japanese Americans in WW2 is silly, because there FDR did have the lot arrested- with no good reason at all.
Only If all Muslims were banned from flying into the USA, then the comparison would be fair.
I never said or implied that Saadiq was guilty of anything- that’s Glenn losing his temper again- I said I would like more details about him before passing judgment.
As a lawyer, I thought Glenn might actually agree with my desire to know more about the case.
One reason I rarely take part in Glenn’s blogs is precisely because he gets so angry with anyone who disagrees with his views. In the past he has shown that he can argue his case well- I strongly supported and agreed with his article comparing Obama and Romney’s Foreign Policies- but he seems incapable of keeping calm when criticised.
And his failure to give us any more information about Saadiq, as he seems to be the only person ever to have come across this case, is actually rather revealing
Greenwald reverts:
Keo2008
As usual Glenn reacts with fury to anyone who dares to question his articles.
I react to people who spew innuendo and place blind faith in government accusations with contempt, not fury.
Since I specifically said that he might be right, but I would like to know a bit more about this case…and since Glenn spectacularly fails to provide any additional information, I remain sceptical.
You didn’t request any “additional information”. You just vaguely implied there must be more to this case than what I reported, even though you have no idea whether that’s true. In other words, you’re casting the same innuendo as the US Government: he must be guilty of something.
I can only repeat- there are nearly 3 million muslims who are citizens of the USA. Why would the US government pick out one at random whilst letting the others in and out. This is why the comparison with the Japanese Americans in WW2 is silly, because there FDR did have the lot arrested- with no good reason at all.
Why were innocent Muslims put in cages for years at Guantanamo without charges? What’s your explanation for that? Do you assume they were guilty of something, since not every Muslim on the planet was put there?
And his failure to give us any more information about Saadiq, as he seems to be the only person ever to have come across this case, is actually rather revealing
This assume there is more relevant information that I’ve concealed, and your continuous assertion that this is so – despite not having any basis whatsoever to believe it – is what makes your innuendo so contemptible and anti-intellectual.
And your suggestion that there’s something weird about the fact that I’m the “only person ever to have come across this case” is inane. That’s how journalism works. There’s always someone who is first to report any story.
I’m in Doha. Saddiq decided it was time to speak out. I was put in touch with him by his lawyers at CAIR to write the story. Nobody else has written it. To conclude that this proves there’s something weird going on – since nobody else ever wrote the story before – is supremely irrational. Do you really not see that?
The argument continues here and here and here, in which Greenwald shouts:
Keo 2008
I did request additional information. I said “Sorry, I need to know more” before passing judgment
WHAT MORE INFORAMTION DO YOU WANT? BE SPECIFIC.
Now please calm down, have a nice cup of tea, and stop losing your temper with posters who are only interested in the truth
Darkly insinuating that there must be more information without specifying what information you think you should have has to do with many things. “Truth” is most assuredly not one of them.
And then on and on and on. Greenwald eventually adds that this soldier converted to Islam, sought conscientious objector status because he refused to participate in the Iraq no-fly zone, and moved to the Middle East. Keo2008 thanks Greenwald for providing this information, and expresses the view that this on its own should not be enough to put somebody on a no-fly list.
The Guardian encourages, but only occasionally gets, interaction in its threads by the authors of its articles. Generally, that sort of debate is to be encouraged. However, this sort of squabbling with commenters is pretty revealing stuff. The questions that Keo2008 asks are not unreasonable – and eventually elicit the information that Glenn Greenwald omits from his article. They are prefaced with some pretty nasty, bad tempered and unwarranted insults from Greenwald.
It goes without saying that Greenwald’s comments would not be deleted by The Guardian: although similar comments attacking an author most certainly would be. I’m surprised that Keo2008’s stayed up – fortunately, he didn’t respond in kind to Greenwald’s jibes, which probably saved him.
Greenwald blogs most days, and his pieces are always the same: irritable, snipish and sarcastic. He attracts a fan club who emulate his conduct.
Greenwald is seen by The Guardian as a great catch, as a latter-day Gore Vidal. Actually, he’s another symptom of the newspaper’s descent into Indymediadom.
