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
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.
It seems to me that you are just following everything the propaganda machine is pushing out.
Do not forget to be crticial and to question legacy media talking points.
We need to keep remembering how legacy media pushed Oct. 07 talking points, only until independent journalists debunked it, then people started to question and become more criticial thinkers, which benefits humanity.
I would suggest to see what other independent jouarnalists had to say about Jan 06; aside from just reading, the status quo narrative pushed by our politicians, owner class.
It seems to me you are unable to engage with anything I’m saying so you keep repeating about media obfuscation.
Lucky for us, we have evidence of all this: Voice calls, memos, and transcripts. Seems to me you are quite clueless about what you are talking about and are happy repeating what you hear.
Well, there is a reason the populist and many of us have lost trust on media, the distrust keeps increasing instead of decreasing as time goes on and legacy media keeps doing what they do best.
It would be awesome if you could make some time to watch this debate, increasing the speed or reading transcipts is an option as well or download and listen to go the go (I use an apk(app) that lets me do that for free), I prefer seeing the facial cues and emotion heard when people talk/debate/discuss:
Munk Debate - Mainstream Media ft. Douglas Murray, Matt Taibbi, Malcolm Gladwell, Michelle Goldberg [01:40:24 | Dec 08 22 | Truthspeak] https://youtu.be/nvaf7XOOFHc
I thought it was a great debate, but they should have found better people for the CON side; to me, it is an endeavour that will result in failure, but compelling points can still be made, so as to make us question and critic our way of thinking and the way we view the world.
I am not the biggest fan of Douglas Murray, but he debated well with his points.
I now plan to make some time to rewatch it again, hahaha
Thank you for engaging in a discussion with me!
I am stubborn and hard heading on topics that interest me a lot, and I know I may hold the wrong views, but I know as time passes I may keep learning and talking with people so as to realign my views on certain topics!
Have an awesome day and wish you the best!