Ending fictional products will not end this sadistic decade.

All this does is make me doubt RT for the first time.

A problem invented to stifle criticism, not protect speech.

Or perhaps they saw exactly what she was tasked to make.

What this film does, then, is uncritically presents as fact the highly self-serving, and factually false, claims by the CIA that its torture techniques were crucial in finding bin Laden. Put another way, it propagandizes the public to favorably view clear war crimes by the US government, based on pure falsehoods.

Meta-analysis, my ass!

What makes this so remarkable is that, by most accounts, the film glorifies torture by claiming – falsely – that waterboarding and other forms of coercive interrogation tactics were crucial, even indispensable in finding bin Laden.

See that?  Greenwald is specifically referencing accounts from those who have seen the movie, not the movie itself. 

Tell me again what’s wrong with talking about people’s reactions to a film as reactions to the film.

I occasionally read Greenwald editorials but pretty rarely.  So in my case it would be hard to make the case that I’m a follower rather than a reader.  This is really about you and others abusing logic because you hate Greenwald and you’re looking for any excuse to bash him.

Reviewing a movie without having seen it undoes the work of the people who made the movie?  Ruins the movie itself?  Rubbish.  The movie is what it is; the only effect of reviewing a movie one hasn’t seen is to impeach one’s own credibility.  Assuming it’s even enough of a deal to call a “problem,” it’s a self-correcting problem.

Though to be honest what I’m outraged about is talking out of once  ass. If you’ve seen something than yeah, criticize it. But if you haven’t it makes you look stupid and apparently doing so is the new norm.

I don’t think its strange to ask what justice would look like for someone who wasn’t going to receive a fair trail. I would have accepted answers such as execution, put in a zoo, imprisonment, torture, community service, working for the public, writing letters of apology etc. Whether these things are just is debatable and even asking the meta question as I’m attempting to do, once was around here. Perhaps I’m not formulating it well.  

For the record, I think it’s horrible he didn’t get a fair trial, or a trial at all- but only from a purely theoretical perspective. My concern in this instance is solely in what was practical, especially in light of our failings. What was the best he was going to get? I think the answer one gives to this is revealing, but I suppose others think its silly to ask because some procedure wasn’t done or because it offends some notion they can’t articulate a response to. Or something.
In any case (trial or no), we’d have the same result, I think.

If that isn’t a possibility

Apparently, Mr. bin Laden was so magically powerful that measures that worked for the Third Reich wouldn’t be able to touch him.  I wonder where he gets his supervillain powers from.

What was justice supposed to look like for him?

The Nuremberg Trials.

Later, he posted about how shocked and dismayed he was that people who read the earlier article might have come to the conclusion that he was a Ron Paul supporter.

In short, he’s a pompous horse’s ass.