Journalist For Time Magazine Announces His Eagerness To Defend US Drone Strike Killing Julian Assange

from the journalism! dept

Mon, Aug 19th 2013 5:21am — Mike Masnick

We've already discussed the odd and somewhat sickening way in which certain mainstream journalists have been clearly cheering on the criminalization of investigative journalism, but Time Magazine's Michael Grunwald took it to a new and incredibly disgusting level this weekend, with a now deleted tweet in which he gleefully announced his eagerness to see the US kill Julian Assange, and then to defend the government for doing so:

In case you can't see that, it says:

I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange.

This isn't just cheering on despicable government actions -- including the extrajudicial execution of a fellow journalist -- but it's saying ahead of time that no matter what the situation, he'll be right there to back up the official party line from the government. Today's modern journalist, Michael Grunwald, is going beyond the typical stenographer role of so many journalists covering the government, to the point where he's directly letting the government know that he'll be their propagandist backing up a despicable and heinous act.

This has nothing to do with whether or not anyone likes Assange. From all the reports, he seems like a perfectly dislikable individual. I don't agree with many of his views on the world or how he goes about doing certain things that he does. But I certainly support his ability to stay alive.

Of course, this isn't new territory for Grunwald and Time Magazine. In "defending" his tweet, he pointed to a column he wrote a few months ago, in which he directly supports taking away Americans' rights if it means stopping terrorists.

Eventually, Grunwald deleted the tweet, but not so much because it's despicable and indefensible, but rather because leaving it up, according to Grunwald "gives Assange supporters a nice safe persecution complex to hide in." Only an hour later did he apologize, saying that the original tweet was "dumb."

Either way, why would Time Magazine employ someone who flat out joyfully proclaims his eagerness to support the US murdering the head of a competing news organization -- one that has shown what a joke Time Magazine has been in terms of holding the government accountable. What major government abuse stories has Time broken lately?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: drones, extrajudicial killing, journalism, julian assange, michael grunwald, propaganda, time magazine

91 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Alana (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 3:43am

Why isn't this guy being put in jail for a tweet like that? I mean, the US is so trigger happy with everything ELSE on the internet. /s

But seriously, though. He only thinks it's dumb because he aired it to a million people and was called out on his bullshit. And he'd be right. But I don't for one second think he actually didn't mean it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rw (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 5:20am
  
  Re:
  He isn't in jail for one reason: It depends on what terrorist you support and he is supporting the ones in government.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    So he is advocating a Drone attack on a foreign embassy in one of our most friendly allied countries. That should go well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 7:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That is taking it too far. He doesn't specify place or time. In the end, the guy is just trying to say that he will be a propagandist of official US policy and he is taking a very despicable example to show how unquestioningly submissive he is.
      
      I cannot see why anyone would do that, least of all a journalist, but everybody has reasons.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - davew, 19 Aug 2013 @ 9:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 9:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He didn't specify when so now is as just as likely as later. If you say something that stupid with your name attached you should be prepared for the reactions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 9:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    The real reason that he isn't in jail is because that speech violates no laws. As offensive as it may be, he has every right to say it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 12:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Unless you say it in reference to a politician, law officer, intelligence type, head of state, etc ... then they will twist the law and arrest you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe, but if so, the person wouldn't be in jail long if at all. Usually, cases like you're talking about are ones where the speech was at least ambiguous (could have been interpreted as a threat). That ambiguity gives them the hook.
        
        Grunwald's statement has no such ambiguity. It's obviously not a threat, nor is in incitement of anything at all.
        
        (I hate being in the position of defending his speech, but defend it I must.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Alana (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 2:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The "/s" tag indicates sarcasm.
      
      And, I said that because of the many times the US has taken someone in for speaking like that on the internet.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 9:41am
  
  Re:
  But if you threaten someone over facebook, you are going to get the SWAT all over you!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oljeavskiljare, 19 Aug 2013 @ 5:31am

Police state
So you can get jailed for criticizing Obama, but goons like Michael Grunwald get to openly propose the murder of Julian Assange? Yes, democratic indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 5:35am
  
  Re: Police state
  " ... openly propose the murder of Julian Assange"
  
  Or the leader of a sovereign nation ... this guy has a lot in common with Pat Robertson
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 9:08am
  
  Re: Police state
  Who's in jail for criticizing Obama?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 11:34am
    
    Re: Re: Police state
    Seriously, if that was a thing I'd print out pages of facebook posts of annoying relatives.
    
    Now before you all think I'm some super Obama supporter I'm not... but hate the guy for what he's done. Not for some tin foil nut case reasons which seem to flood the wacko market these days.
    
    Hell sometimes the wackos come up with offences that fall far bellow the these horrifying NSA revelations.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 5:32am

We're that close of a very disgusting fascist world. The guy should be arrested and trialed for murder instigation apology. And fired for this incredible unethical publication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Real Michael, 19 Aug 2013 @ 5:43am
  
  Re:
  Amazing how if a famous person says something that's not PC, the media goes on a tirade about it, yet this "journalist" (and I use that term loosely) makes a jovial comment about someone else's impending death by drone strike(!) and he'll walk away unscathed.
  
  Our country is fast devolving into a fascist nightmare.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 7:06am
  
  Re:
  In Michael Grunwald's own opinion
  
  It's not Fascism when we do it!
  
  That sentence largely sums up a lot of US policy, especially anything 'security' related.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tracker1 (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 9:25am
  
  Isn't Time Magazine...
  the same magazine that once named Hitler as "Man of The Year"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike-2 Alpha (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 7:27am
    
    Re: Isn't Time Magazine...
    It is. And, under their criteria, it was justified. Being named "Man of the Year" isn't an endorsement, or an accolade. It's Time's way of pointing out the person they think "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year." In 1938, that was absolutely Adolf Hitler.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 5:48am

How is killing an individual for political/philosophical reasons NOT a terrorist act? Clearly he needs to be detained and have his electronics taken away the next time he goes to the airport.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 5:49am

I propose that everyone find his local jurisdiction, call up the local PD and report this guy for inciting terrorism.

Because that's what this is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:58am
  
  Re:
  Post the information when you find it. I'll call.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 9:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    According to his Time biog, he lives in Miami. Going to corroborate now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 9:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ....and corroborated. He lives in Miami Beach, FL.
      
      After all, regardless of what you think of his articles, he just broke the law.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 12:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, he really didn't, by any stretch of the imagination.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Uriel-238 (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 10:45am
    
    Grunwald's personal data.
    Ask on 4Chan /b. Anonymous provides.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 11:48am
      
      Re: Grunwald's personal data.
      There has got to be so many Geneva Convention violations over getting that lot involved...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re:
  While I don't think that Grunwald's statement comes close to inciting anything, let alone terrorism, this statement certainly is incitement of harassment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 5:57am

TIME - The Biased News Source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Real Michael, 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:01am
  
  Re:
  I honestly don't know of a single news source which isn't biased.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 7:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    A news source that isn't in some way biased isn't a news source.
    - Anonymous Coward
    
    You have to pick several very differently biased sources to see the objective information in a situation. Getting all information from a single source is just feeding the ideology the specific source holds.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Real Michael, 19 Aug 2013 @ 8:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The most important thing in journalism is to present the full story, the 'who, what, when, where, why, and how' with little-to-no slant. Otherwise, journalism isn't much more than glorified op-ed pieces with data presented as deemed convenient, in order to put a spin on the story.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 9:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      True, but it's also true that some "news" outlets as less factually accurate than others, regardless of bias. So get your news from a variety of viewpoints, but be picky about which sources you use.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Uriel-238 (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 10:46am
    
    Unbiased news.
    The Christian Science Monitor tries really hard to be unbiased.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 12:01pm
      
      Re: Unbiased news.
      Yes. The CSM is one of the very few places that can be called mainstream who actually do journalism any more.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:00am

If you propose to go kill some one with a bomb and tweet like that, you'll be liable to get a special visit. Probably one of the FBI agents undercover will be willing to give you a hand. Even supply you with plans, fake bombs, the whole works. Then when you move to use all that, the FBI will be happy to arrest you and set you on your merry way through the legal system.

So why isn't the FBI visiting this guy? I mean he's right out there on one of the most public of public places saying he'd like to see someone dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Uriel-238 (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 10:49am
  
  The difference is:
  If you say I'm gonna kill some guy, you're threatening to commit terror.
  
  If you say Someone should kill this guy, you're instigating terror.
  
  If you say My government should kill this guy, you're advocating policy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Real Michael, 20 Aug 2013 @ 6:19am
    
    Re: The difference is:
    The act of killing or threatening to is not in and of itself terrorism.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:03am

Time was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:55am
  
  Re:
  Time lost another reader today.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:08am

*Marlin Perkins Voice*
And if you watch closely you can see the wild reporter in heat. Here he is presenting, showing the dominate ones he is receptive to receiving what they are willing to give him. See how he as assumed the submissive position, showing he is no threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:10am

Rush LImbaugh was gleeful about the Gulf War.
With his "Bomb, Bomb, Iraq" song and constant cheering. The whole "media" has long been a propaganda machine advocating bigger and more militant gov't: this person is just specific and blatant, and targets supposed techno-geek Assange.

If you're surprised to see this attitude among "mainstream" press, it's just insufficient cynicism combined with inability to see that your own buttons were pushed previously as gov't provided excuses for war that you accepted without too much questioning. But there's no "existential" threat to the US-superpower that's justified any war since Korea, at a stretch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:13am

I can't wait for the next Times top 100 article, Top 100 Reasons We Love Our Glorious Government Benefactors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:26am
  
  Re:
  Maybe they should look at Cracked for journalistic integrity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:35am

the head of a competing news organization

Wikileaks is a news organization? Please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 8:02am
  
  Re:
  In the sense of doing the job the press is supposed to be doing: exposing wrongdoings of the government.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 8:26am
  
  Re:
  Wikileaks is a news organization? Please.
  
  Yes it is. And you are welcome.
  
  Just curious as to why you would think that Wikileaks isn't a new organization?
  
  - they collect information
  - they distribute that info
  
  Or in your view of things do only organizations with White House press passes classify as news organizations?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:42am

In the US "Patriot" has come to mean Someone that blindly follows and never questions the government. If you question anything, you are a Socialist or a Communist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pragmatic, 20 Aug 2013 @ 5:54am
  
  Re:
  So I've noticed. It happens to me all the time, except here, where the smart people are (I'm not including the trolls in this assessment).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roman, 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:43am

At this point
Between this joker and Fareed "If you disagree with my plagiarized article you are un-American" Zakaria I can't imagine Time has any credibility left, unless of course they actually fired people like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:44am

From the tone of the tweet one can only assume that Assange jilted Grunwald at some point. He should understand that sometimes one night of bliss or 5 minutes behind the bushes is all there is in a particular relationship. Move on Grunwald, move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:51am

I can't wait to write a defense of the pink slip that leaves Michael Grunwald unemployed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

horse with no name, 19 Aug 2013 @ 6:53am

bastard!
what a bastard, having an opinion and all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 8:03am
  
  Re: bastard!
  Of course you can relate, no surprise there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Real Michael, 19 Aug 2013 @ 8:37am
  
  Re: bastard!
  Yes, he has a right to his opinion; however, to state that he (as a journalist) would justify government assassination by drone strike is seriously disconcerting, exhibiting a slave-state mindset of might equals right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 8:50am
  
  Re: bastard!
  No one's going to take you seriously, Prenda fanboy.
  
  horse with no name just hates it when due process is enforced.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - horse with no name, 19 Aug 2013 @ 11:51am
    
    Re: Re: bastard!
    "horse with no name just hates it when due process is enforced."
    
    Trolling much?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 7:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: bastard!
      I only need to look here and here indicate that the comment was grounded in facts.
      
      You really can't stand any display of due process. My guess is that you have John Steele punish Otis Wright in your sick fantasy dream sequences so you can sleep at night.
      
      You're not fooling anyone, Prenda fanboy. Enjoy the Streisand effect.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 7:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: bastard!
        Again, you attempt to bait and distract from the original post. Since those posts have nothing to do with due process - AND I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF PRENDA - I would ask the admins to give you the same level of blocking I currently suffer. Clearly you are a liar, nothing more and nothing less, and a troll bent on turning every discussion into something about me.
        
        You are a sick, twisted troll with nothing to add. Go away already.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 2:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bastard!
        You are a sick, twisted troll with nothing to add. Go away already.
        
        Indeed, why haven't you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2013 @ 6:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bastard!
        Again, you attempt to bait and distract from the original post.
        
        Well, that's just fine and dandy, because that's what out_of_the_blue, average_joe, darryl and you do on a regular basis.
        
        I would ask the admins to give you the same level of blocking I currently suffer.
        
        You speak of these blocks. According to the timestamps your message came less than half an hour after the message you responded to.
        
        Just like your previous messages, your rebuttal is a joke. This "blocking" clearly doesn't exist or isn't working like you claim it is.
        
        Clearly you are a liar, nothing more and nothing less, and a troll bent on turning every discussion into something about me.
        
        Maybe you should've considered not making every discussion on Prenda into a character assassination of Otis Wright and focus on the multitude of legal professionals that agree with the even-handedness of what he's done.
        
        You're not fooling anyone, bobmail.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 9:27am
  
  Re: bastard!
  I know this will shock you, but you don't get to shout "OPINION!" and render yourself immune to criticism.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike-2 Alpha (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 7:32am
  
  Re: bastard!
  Grunwald's opinion is that Julian Assange should die for publishing classified information. Mine is that he's a dick for saying so. He can have his opinion, and I can have mine. That's how this works.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 7:01am

Not about personalities
As I've seen it put elsewhere: it's fucking stupid to judge whether a spy program is good or bad based on whether we like the guy who released the docs, or his motives.

"I really wasn't sure about the wisdom of a massive US surveillance state, but since I saw that activist twerp leaker's annoying hair and oversized ego I've decided I need to white knight the NSA!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 7:02am

Time = another op designed to implement the reality THEY have created for you. WAKE THE F UP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jasmine Charter, 19 Aug 2013 @ 7:08am

Media = Propagandist
It's sad to say, there are few, if any, REAL journalists today. Meaning objective journalists with no agenda.

Whether it's CNN, MSNBC, etc with their TOTALLY liberal agenda or FOX with it's obvious RIGHTWING slant, the fact is, the public can no longer count on journalism to be fair and objective.

Which means more and more sheople blindly accepting whatever idiotic propaganda they spew forth as REAL fact, rather than what it REALLY is... editorialize content with an agenda.

And why this current US administration seems to have the media as their personal lapdog Propagandists is beyond me.

We used to count on the media to keep the politicians honest... now they're just part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Real Michael, 19 Aug 2013 @ 8:39am
  
  Re: Media = Propagandist
  That's because they want us assimilated and divided between two parties of their creation. That way they can control and shape our thinking and our political-social outlook. Independent thought is a no-no.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 7:11am

Given the US Government's attempts to control their media, I'm inclined to believe that Greenwald's statement, though pathetically gross, has a hint of sarcasm about it. It seems people (understandingly) didn't take to the sarcastic comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 7:14am
  
  Re:
  *Grunwald's
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
avideogameplayer, 19 Aug 2013 @ 7:13am

Time lost all creditably when it got punk out by Scientology back in the 80s...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 7:23am
  
  Re:
  You are aware that the basis of the religion of Scientology is around the science fiction novels of one L. Ron Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard's failed conjectures about psychology right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 7:23am

He deleted his tweet and now thinks it was stupid.

MikeGrunwald 18 Aug
Fair point. I'll delete. @rober1236Jua my main problem with this is it gives Assange supporters a nice safe persecution complex to hide in

MikeGrunwald 18 Aug
It was a dumb tweet. I'm sorry. I deserve the backlash. (Maybe not the anti-Semitic stuff but otherwise I asked for it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 10:43am
  
  Re:
  But notice how quickly he played the 'but I'm a victim too!' card.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 11:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    And how he belittles those who hold a different opinion with irrelevent fabricated insults rather than something actually relevent to the discussion.. A telltale sign of the type of "journalist"s they employ there at Time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 7:30am

And now you know...
This is a perfect example of why the government is in favor of supporting "professional" journalists and not lowly bloggers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolfy, 19 Aug 2013 @ 7:38am

Wasn't "Time" one of those publishing concerns that the CIA bought, along with "World Weekly News", to help spread disinformation about UFO's?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 7:43am

Jealousy rears it's ugly head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DanMitchell (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 8:07am

Well, he's writing Tim Geithner's book....
So....

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/geithner-taps-times-grunwald-for-new-book-1647 48.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BentFranklin (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 9:12am
  
  Re: Well, he's writing Tim Geithner's book....
  He'll need lots of Ghost writer's ink.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JustMe (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 8:48am

Tried to cancel my subscription to Time
but I don't have my info with me. Will do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 9:14am

I can't wait for Time Magazine to fire him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kfn (profile), 19 Aug 2013 @ 9:54am

So write it
Nothing is stopping him from writing it right now. In fact, I'll give him some semicolons to take along on the journey: ;;;;;;;;;;. Hope that's enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 10:32am

Dude if that happens... I don't want to believe it will happen. That would be crossing a very fine line and setting a precedence from which there is no turning back.

Seriously tho, fuck that guy for even suggesting he would be all for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 10:39am
  
  Re:
  We've already intentionally targeted and killed US citizens abroad with drones. They may be douche-bags, but they're still entitled to due process.
  
  The precedent-cat is already out of the bag.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 10:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    It would be a deliberate and extremely public political assassination. That is far more brazen than offing some nobody they can easily affiliate with xenophobia toward Islamics and most of the American public wouldn't be any wiser. I don't think that precedence is out of the bag. That is when it goes from being a dirty little secret that many Americans won't even acknowledge to it being the White House saying "What? We offed some journalist who posted our dirty laundry. You gonna come at us or what?! Didn't think so, pussies!"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 1:48pm

It's time, for Time, to close up shop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2013 @ 11:21pm

So this guy is basically saying its cool we will just murder Julian Assange and I'll cover it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike-2 Alpha (profile), 20 Aug 2013 @ 7:35am
  
  Re:
  No, he's saying "go right ahead! Blow him to kingdom come. I'll just be over here telling everyone how awesome it was that you did it."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cloudsplitter, 23 Aug 2013 @ 3:12pm

A journalist that writes that a fellow journalist should be murdered by this government, or any government, or extra judicial body, is expressing his or her own death wish. One would have to ask are you any safer then the one who's death you call for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2013 @ 2:56pm

Honestly...
I could see someone saying that sarcastically. "I can't wait to defend the US's assassination of Julius Assange." With the unspoken message of "It's my job, I have no goddamn choice and have to do it, I suspect it's a matter of when not if... what the hell is my goddamn country going to? I need a drinking problem"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]