This article's citation style may be unclear. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking. (September 2009)

Part of a series on
Freedom
Concepts
Liberty positive negative social Rights Free will Moral responsibility
By type
Academic Civil Economic Intellectual Political Scientific
By right
Assembly Association Bear Arms Education Information Movement Press Religion Speech (public) Speech (schools) Thought
v t e

Civil liberties are civil rights and freedoms that provide an individual specific rights such as the freedom from slavery and forced labor, freedom from torture and death, the right to liberty and security, right to a fair trial, the right to defend one's self, the right to own and bear arms, the right to privacy, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, and the right to marry and have a family.^{[citation needed]} Common civil liberties include the rights of people, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, bodily integrity, the right to due process, to a trial, to own property, and to privacy.^{[citation needed]} Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, it is important to note the distinctions between positive rights and negative rights.

Overview[link]

Many contemporary states have a constitution, a bill of rights, or similar constitutional documents that enumerate and seek to guarantee civil liberties. Other states have enacted similar laws through a variety of legal means, including signing and ratifying or otherwise giving effect to key conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The existence of some claimed civil liberties is a matter of dispute, as are the extent of most civil rights. Controversial examples include property rights, reproductive rights, civil marriage, and the right to keep and bear arms. Whether the existence of victimless crimes infringes upon civil liberties is a matter of dispute. Another matter of debate is the suspension or alteration of certain civil liberties in times of war or state of emergency, including whether and to what extent this should occur.

The formal concept of civil liberties dates back to the English legal charter the Magna Carta 1215, which in turn was based on pre-existing documents namely the English Charter of Liberties, a landmark document in English legal history.

North America[link]

United States[link]

Broken Liberty: Istanbul Archaeology Museum

The United States Constitution, especially its Bill of Rights, protects civil liberties. The passage of the Fourteenth Amendment further protected civil liberties by introducing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. Human rights within the United States are often called civil rights, which are those rights, privileges and immunities held by all people, in distinction to political rights, which are the rights that inhere to those who are entitled to participate in elections, as candidates or voters.^[1] Before universal suffrage, this distinction was important, since many people were ineligible to vote but still were considered to have the fundamental freedoms derived from the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This distinction is less important now that Americans enjoy near universal suffrage, and civil liberties are now taken to include the political rights to vote and participate in elections.

Canada[link]

The Constitution of Canada includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees many of the same rights as the U.S. constitution, with the notable exceptions of protection against establishment of religion. However, the Charter does protect freedom of religion. The Charter also omits any mention of, or protection for, property.

Europe[link]

European Convention on Human Rights[link]

The European Convention on Human Rights, to which most European countries, including all of the European Union, belong, enumerates a number of civil liberties and is of varying constitutional force in different European states.

United Kingdom[link]

While the United Kingdom has no codified constitution, relying on a number of legal conventions and pieces of legislation, it is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights which covers both human rights and civil liberties. The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the great majority of Convention rights directly into UK law. Britain has what is called an unwritten constitution: centuries of legislation and legal precedent dating back to before the Magna Carta guarantee the rights of its subjects. In June 2008 the then Shadow Home Secretary David Davis resigned his parliamentary seat over what he described as the "erosion of civil liberties" by the then Labour government, and successfully won re-election on a civil liberties platform (although he was not opposed by candidates of other major parties). This was in reference to anti-terrorism laws and in particular the extension to pre-trial detention, that is perceived by many to be an infringement of Habeas Corpus established in the Magna Carta in 1215.

France[link]

France's 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen listed many civil liberties and is of constitutional force.

Asia[link]

China[link]

The Constitution of People's Republic of China (which applies only to mainland China, not to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan), especially its Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens, claims to protect many civil liberties, although in practice dissidents may find themselves without the protection of the rule of law. See Civil liberties in the People's Republic of China.

India[link]

The Fundamental Rights — embodied in Part III of the constitution — guarantee civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace as citizens of India. The six fundamental rights are right to equality, right to freedom, right against exploitation, right to freedom of religion, cultural and educational rights and right to constitutional remedies.^[2]

These include individual rights common to most liberal democracies, incorporated in the fundamental law of the land and are enforceable in a court of law. Violations of these rights result in punishments as prescribed in the Indian Penal Code, subject to discretion of the judiciary. These rights are neither absolute nor immune from constitutional amendments. They have been aimed at overturning the inequalities of pre-independence social practises. Specifically, they resulted in abolishment of untouchability and prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. They forbid human trafficking and unfree labour. They protect cultural and educational rights of ethnic and religious minorities by allowing them to preserve their languages and administer their own educational institutions.

All people, irrespective of race, religion, caste or sex, have the right to approach the High Courts or the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. It is not necessary that the aggrieved party has to be the one to do so. In public interest, anyone can initiate litigation in the court on their behalf. This is known as "Public interest litigation".^[3] High Court and Supreme Court judges can also act on their own on the basis of media reports.

The Fundamental Rights emphasise equality by guaranteeing to all citizens the access and use of public institutions and protections, irrespective of their background. The rights to life and personal liberty apply for persons of any nationality, while others, such as the freedom of speech and expression are applicable only to the citizens of India (including non-resident Indian citizens).^[4] The right to equality in matters of public employment cannot be conferred to overseas citizens of India.^[5]

Fundamental Rights primarily protect individuals from any arbitrary State actions, but some rights are enforceable against private individuals too.^[6] For instance, the constitution abolishes untouchability and prohibits begar. These provisions act as a check both on State action and actions of private individuals. Fundamental Rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions as necessary for the protection of national interest. In the Kesavananda Bharati vs. state of Kerala case, the Supreme Court ruled that all provisions of the constitution, including Fundamental Rights can be amended.^[7] However, the Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the constitution like secularism, democracy, federalism, separation of powers. Often called the "Basic structure doctrine", this decision is widely regarded as an important part of Indian history. In the 1978 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court extended the doctrine's importance as superior to any parliamentary legislation.According to the verdict, no act of parliament can be considered a law if it violated the basic structure of the constitution. This landmark guarantee of Fundamental Rights was regarded as a unique example of judicial independence in preserving the sanctity of Fundamental Rights. The Fundamental Rights can only be altered by a constitutional amendment, hence their inclusion is a check not only on the executive branch, but also on the Parliament and state legislatures.^[8] The imposition of a state of emergency may lead to a temporary suspension of the rights conferred by Article 19 (including freedoms of speech, assembly and movement, etc.) to preserve national security and public order. The President can, by order, suspend the right to constitutional remedies as well.

Huge rallies like this one in Kolkata are commonplace in India.

Japan[link]

Russia[link]

The Constitution of Russian Federation guarantees in theory many of the same rights and civil liberties as the U.S. except to bear arms, i.e.: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and assembly, freedom to choose language, to due process, to a fair trial, privacy, freedom to vote, right for education, etc. However, human rights groups like Amnesty International have warned that Putin has seriously curtailed freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association amidst growing authoritarianism.^[9]

See also[link]

Political science portal

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Civil Liberties

• Rights, Civil Liberties and Freedoms in Russia
• The Cato Institute: Civil Liberties
• Leading Civil Liberties Organizations in the United States
• USDOJ: Privacy and Civil Liberties Office
• Court cases involving Civil Liberties held at the National Archives at Atlanta

Glenn Greenwald
Born	(1967-03-06) March 6, 1967 (age 45) Queens, New York
Nationality	United States
Citizenship	United States
Education	B.A., 1990 J.D., 1994
Alma mater	George Washington University New York University Law School
Genres	non-fiction, political and legal commentary
Subjects	US politics, law
Notable work(s)	How Would a Patriot Act? A Tragic Legacy
salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Glenn Greenwald (born March 6, 1967) is an American lawyer, columnist, blogger, and author. Greenwald worked as a constitutional and civil rights litigator before becoming a contributor (columnist and blogger) to Salon.com, where he focuses on political and legal topics.^[1] He has also contributed to other newspapers and political news magazines, including The New York Times,^[2][3][4] The Los Angeles Times,^[5] The Guardian,^[6][7][8] The American Conservative,^[9] The National Interest,^[10] and In These Times.^[11][12]

Greenwald has written four books, three of which have been New York Times bestsellers: How Would a Patriot Act? (2006); A Tragic Legacy (2007), and With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, released in October 2011. He also wrote Great American Hypocrites (2008).

In March 2009, he was selected, along with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, as the recipient of the first annual Izzy Award by the Park Center for Independent Media, an award named after independent journalist I.F. "Izzy" Stone and devoted to rewarding excellence in independent journalism. The selection panel cited Greenwald's "pathbreaking journalistic courage and persistence in confronting conventional wisdom, official deception and controversial issues."^[13]

In October 2010, he won the Online Journalism Award for Best Commentary, for his investigative article on the arrest of U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning as the alleged leaker to WikiLeaks.^[14] The same year, he was a Finalist for the National Magazine Awards category of "excellence in online reporting and commentary published as a blog."^[15]

His commentaries "on surveillance issues and separation of powers" have been cited in The New York Times, in The Washington Post, in United States Senate floor debates, and in House "official ... reports on executive power abuses,"^[16] and he appears on various radio and television programs as a guest political pundit.^[17]

Background[link]

Greenwald was born on March 6, 1967, in Queens, New York City, the son of Arlene and Daniel Greenwald.^[18] Shortly after his birth Greenwald moved with his family to South Florida.^[1][19] He earned a B.A. from George Washington University in 1990 and a J.D. from New York University Law School in 1994.^[1] During law school, he worked as an intern and Summer Associate at the New York law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, and after graduation, he practiced law in the Litigation Department at Wachtell, Lipton (1994–1995); in 1996 he co-founded his own litigation firm, called Greenwald Christoph & Holland (later renamed Greenwald Christoph PC), where he litigated cases concerning issues of U.S. constitutional law and civil rights.^[1][19]

One of Greenwald's most notable First Amendment clients was Matthew Hale, a leader of the organization now known as the Creativity Movement. On April 6, 2005, Hale was sentenced to a 40-year prison term for soliciting an undercover FBI informant to kill federal judge Joan Lefkow.^[20] and was incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado.^[21] Although he "represented Hale and his organization in several civil cases" and was not involved in Hale's criminal defense case, after the subsequent killing of Judge Lefkow's mother and husband while Hale was incarcerated for the earlier conviction, Greenwald was approached by Hale's mother, Evelyn Hutcheson. She asked Greenwald to deliver a purportedly "encoded message" from the imprisoned Hale to one of his supporters on the outside; Greenwald declined to do so.^[22][23]

In his entry in Unclaimed Territory for July 10, 2006, Greenwald states, "I decided voluntarily to wind down my practice in 2005 because I could, and because, after ten years, I was bored with litigating full-time and wanted to do other things which I thought were more engaging and could make more of an impact, including political writing."^[19]

In the same entry, Greenwald observes that he has been openly gay for 20 years and that, while he has lived in the United States all his life, he divides his time between New York City and Rio de Janeiro, the hometown of his partner:

Revealingly, American law prevents the recognition of our relationship as a ground for him to live in the United States, while Brazilian law recognizes same-sex relationships for visa and immigration purposes. As a result, for the past year [2006], I have spent substantial time in Brazil while also having a residence in New York. Spending substantial time in another country does not make one an 'expatriate.' And even those American citizens who do give up American residence and live abroad retain full rights of citizenship, including voting rights. But I have not done so.^[19]

An April, 2011 Out Magazine profile describes Greenwald's six-year relationship with his Brazilian partner, David Michael Miranda, and explains that "he lives in Rio de Janeiro" because he is "barred from moving to the United States" with Miranda^[24]. Another profile of Greenwald, from a New Zealand political magazine in 2012, says the interview with Greenwald was conducted from "Rio de Janeiro, where he lives with his husband and 10 dogs, which they keep rescuing from the streets^[25].

According to Ken Silverstein's interview with Greenwald published in Harper's Magazine on February 22, 2008, conducted by telephone while Greenwald was in Brazil, he lives there "much of the time."^[26] On July 22, 2008, when Greenwald participated in a debate with Cass Sunstein, an adviser to then Senator Barack Obama, moderated by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, their exchange was also conducted by telephone from Brazil.^[27]

In a May 2008 interview, Greenwald explained that "even though Brazil has the largest Catholic population of any country in the world" and "was a military dictatorship until 1985": "I’m able to obtain from the Brazilian government a permanent visa because my Brazilian partner's government recognizes our relationship for immigration purposes, while the government of my supposedly 'free,' liberty-loving country enacted a law explicitly barring such recognition."^[28]

Political views[link]

Greenwald is critical of actions that have the support of both Democrats and Republicans, writing: "the worst and most tyrannical government actions in Washington are equally supported on a fully bipartisan basis."^[29]

In the preface to his first book, How Would a Patriot Act? (2006), Greenwald begins by giving some of his own personal political history, describing himself as at first neither liberal nor conservative but as one who had taken positions that can be ascribed to both liberals and conservatives, voting neither for George W. Bush nor for any of his rivals, indeed not voting at all.^[30] Bush's ascendancy to the U.S. Presidency "changed" Greenwald's previous uninvolved political attitude toward the electoral process "completely":

Over the past five years, a creeping extremism has taken hold of our federal government, and it is threatening to radically alter our system of government and who we are as a nation. This extremism is neither conservative nor liberal in nature, but is instead driven by theories of unlimited presidential power that are wholly alien, and antithetical, to the core political values that have governed this country since its founding"; for, "the fact that this seizure of ever-expanding presidential power is largely justified through endless, rank fear-mongering—fear of terrorists, specifically—means that not only our system of government is radically changing, but so, too, are our national character, our national identity, and what it means to be American."^[30]

Believing that "It is incumbent upon all Americans who believe in that system, bequeathed to us by the founders, to defend it when it is under assault and in jeopardy. And today it is", he stresses: "I did not arrive at these conclusions eagerly or because I was predisposed by any previous partisan viewpoint. Quite the contrary."^[30]

Resistant to applying ideological labels to himself, he emphasizes repeatedly that he is a strong advocate for U.S. constitutional "balance of powers"^[12] and for constitutionally-protected civil and political rights in his writings and public appearances.^[1]

Throughout them he has relentlessly criticized the policies of the George W. Bush administration and those who support or enable it, arguing that most of the American "Corporate News Media" excuse Bush's policies and echo administration talking points rather than asking hard questions.^[26][31]

Entitling his Unclaimed Territory blog entry for January 16, 2006, "Bush Followers Are Not Conservatives", Greenwald explains this position:

It has long been clear that there is nothing remotely "conservative" about this Administration, at least in the sense that conservative ideology has stood for a restrained Federal Government which was to be distrusted. There has been a long line of decidedly un-conservative actions by this Administration – from exploding discretionary domestic spending to record deficits to an emergency convening of the Federal Government to intervene in one woman's end-of-life decisions to attempts to federalize, even constitutionalize, marriage laws – all of which could not be any more alien to what has been meant by "conservatism" for the past 40 years.^[32]

The New York Times describes Greenwald as a liberal.^[33][34]

In his various media guest appearances and publications, Greenwald elaborates his political views, which he also summarizes succinctly in responding to "six questions ... about political campaign coverage and the media" that Ken Silverstein posed to him in an article published in Harper's Magazine on February 21, 2008.^[26]

Greenwald holds a favourable view of drug liberalization. He conducted research, commissioned by the Cato Institute, on the effect of the abolition of all criminal penalties for personal drug possession in Portugal, which occurred in 2001. According to Greenwald, "decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success... It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does".^[35]

He also opposes capital punishment on the ground that it is "unjust."^[36]

In a discussion about civil liberties in the age of Obama, he elaborated on his conception of change when he said, "I think the only means of true political change will come from people working outside of that [two-party electoral] system to undermine it, and subvert it, and weaken it, and destroy it; not try to work within it to change it."^[37] He did, however, raise money for Russ Feingold's 2010 Senate re-election bid ^[38], Bill Halter's 2010 primary challenge to Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln ^[39], as well as several Congressional candidates in 2012 he described as "unique"^[40].

[edit] Unclaimed Territory

Greenwald started his blog Unclaimed Territory in October 2005, focusing initially on the investigation pertaining to the Plame affair, the CIA leak grand jury investigation, and the federal indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Two months later, when the National Security Agency warrantless surveillance controversy became news, he began to focus primarily on that issue. In January 2006 Greenwald attracted national media attention after he wrote in Unclaimed Territory that U.S. Senator Mike DeWine had proposed an easier standard for domestic eavesdropping by federal agents in 2002 but that the administration had declined any interest in the legislation and advised him that it would probably be unconstitutional, a direct contradiction of much of the later rationale for the NSA warrantless domestic spying program once it was known; Dan Eggen, of The Washington Post, for example, observed that "The DeWine amendment" — "the latest point of contention in a fierce political and legal battle over the NSA monitoring program" — was "first highlighted ... by Internet blogger Glenn Greenwald and widely publicized yesterday by the Project on Government Secrecy, an arm of the Federation of American Scientists...."^[41]

In March 2006, Senator Russ Feingold quoted Greenwald's comments in Unclaimed Territory on the floor of the U.S. Senate when he introduced Senate Resolution 398, to censure President Bush.^[42]

In April 2006, Unclaimed Territory received the 2005 Koufax Award for "Best New Blog".^[1]

In February 2008, during a debate over the FISA and Telecom Immunity bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate broadcast on C-Span, Senator Chris Dodd quoted Greenwald's comments posted in Unclaimed Territory.^[43]

Salon.com[link]

In February 2007, Greenwald became a contributing writer at Salon.com, and the new column and blog superseded Unclaimed Territory, though Salon.com prominently features hyperlinks to it in Greenwald's dedicated biographical section.^[44][45]

Joe Klein[link]

In his Salon.com column of November 21, 2007, Greenwald documented factual errors in a national column written by Joe Klein in Time magazine.^[46][47][48] In response to such criticism, Time subsequently added an intended clarification (or quasi-retraction) in an online version of Klein's disputed column — "In the original version of this story, Joe Klein wrote that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would allow a court review of individual foreign surveillance targets. Republicans believe the bill can be interpreted that way, but Democrats don't." — but Greenwald observed that the text of the legislation does not require court review of individual targets, and Time's response repeating "what each side says" disregards that point.^[49][50] Pertaining to this controversy, Time published letters from U.S. Senator Russ Feingold and others in its later issues of the magazine.^[51][52]

Anthrax reporting[link]

In August 2008, following the apparent suicide of terror suspect Bruce Ivins, Greenwald wrote a series of long entries, detailing the evidence that there has been a cover-up by individuals in the US government and ABC News in the 2001 anthrax attacks, calling for "a full-scale Congressional hearing or even an external Commission of the type that investigated the 9/11 attacks – endowed with full subpoena power – to examine all of the unresolved issues here."^[53] Greenwald also expressed interest in the identity of the individual who allegedly told ABC News' Brian Ross falsely in 2001 that the anthrax contained bentonite and falsely linking the anthrax attack to Saddam Hussein and argued that the broadcasting of this claim by ABC News was instrumental in guiding the US media and public opinion towards war with Iraq; subsequently, according to Dan Gillmor, who prominently cites and links to Greenwald in an article published in the guardian.co.uk, Brian Ross refused to divulge the identity of the individual who purportedly misled him.^[54]

John O. Brennan[link]

After U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's victory in November 2008, the media reported that former CIA official John O. Brennan, who had served as Senator Obama's top intelligence adviser during his 2008 election campaign, was the leading candidate to be named by Obama as either the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (D/CIA) or the next Director of National Intelligence (DNI).^[55] In a lengthy essay published in Salon.com, Greenwald argued that Brennan had supported many controversial detention and interrogation policies of the Bush administration, including "enhanced interrogation tactics" and extraordinary rendition.^[56] Other notable writers such as Andrew Sullivan credited Greenwald's Salon.com essay as the impetus for their opposition to Brennan's nomination.^[57] On November 24, Brennan wrote a letter to President-elect Obama withdrawing his name from consideration for any top intelligence posts, citing "strong criticism in some quarters."^[57] Media reports and other political pundits cited the "firestorm in liberal blogs" as the cause of Brennan's withdrawal.^[58][59]

Bradley Manning[link]

On December 15, 2010, Greenwald wrote of the detention conditions in which U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning, the accused WikiLeaks leaker, was being held. Based on interviews with Manning's visitors and officials at the Marine brig where he was being held, Greenwald reported that the Army Private was being held "under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture": specifically, that he "has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions."^[60]

Greenwald's reporting ultimately led to a formal investigation by the U.N. high official on torture,^[61] denunciations by Amnesty International,^[62] and the resignation of State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley after he publicly criticized Manning's detention conditions.^[63] Since then, Greenwald has been a strong supporter of Manning. He calls Manning "a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives", and "a national hero similar to Daniel Ellsberg."^[64]

Hacking of security company HBGary's email servers by Anonymous revealed that as a result of his advocacy on behalf of Manning and WikiLeaks, Greenwald has been targeted in "[a] bizarre plan" — outlined in a report by Palantir Technologies, HBGary Federal and Berico Technologies — "saying that his 'level of support' for WikiLeaks 'needs to be disrupted.'"^[65] The report "was developed following a request from Hunton and Williams, a law firm that represents Bank of America, as well as others", and claims that "[w]ithout the support of people like Glenn wikileaks would fold."^[65]

Greenwald said his "initial reaction to all of this was to scoff at its absurdity. . . . But after learning a lot more over the last couple of days, I now take this more seriously -- not in terms of my involvement but the broader implications this story highlights."^[66] Salon.com editor-in-chief Kerry Lauerman wrote:

We have no reason not to take the report seriously. As a result, I've asked both Hunton and Williams and Bank of America to explain any role they played and address whether HB Gary (or any of the firms) were being paid, or promised payment, for its development. . . . As bumbling as this whole saga sounds — Internet security firm can't keep its shadowy dirty tricks campaign from being hacked — what's outlined in these sets of proposals, as Glenn points out, "quite possibly constitutes serious crimes." And as it relates to Glenn and the others, it constitutes an unconscionable attempt to silence journalists doing their jobs.^[65]

Books[link]

Greenwald's first book, How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values From a President Run Amok, published by Working Assets, in 2006, was a New York Times bestseller^[67] and ranked number one on Amazon.com both before its publication due to pre-orders based on attention from other bloggers and for several days after its release, ending its first week at number 293.^[68]

A Tragic Legacy, his second book, aims to examine the presidency of George W. Bush "with an emphasis on his personality traits and beliefs that drove the presidency (along with an emphasis on how and why those personality traits have led to a presidency that has failed to historic proportions)."^[69] Published in hardback by Crown, a division of Random House, on June 26, 2007, and later reprinted in a paperback edition by Three Rivers Press on April 8, 2008, it also appeared on "The New York Times Best Seller List" after its original release and was ranked number one for a day on Amazon.com's "Non-Fiction Best Seller List", before becoming number two the next day, also due to heavy "discussions and promotions by blogs – a campaign catalyzed by Jane Hamsher [at FireDogLake]", according to Greenwald.^[70]

His third book, entitled Great American Hypocrites, was published by Random House in April 2008, the same month that Three Rivers Press reissued A Tragic Legacy in paperback.^[71]

His fourth book, entitled With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. Metropolitan Books (Div. of Henry Holt and Company), 2011

Media appearances[link]

Greenwald has appeared as a roundtable guest on ABC's Sunday morning news show "This Week", NPR's "All Things Considered", as well as numerous times on C-SPAN's Washington Journal; Pacifica Radio's syndicated series Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman;^[31] on Public Radio International's To the Point; MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, "Morning Joe" and Dylan Ratigan's "Morning Meeting"; Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume;^[72] and The Colbert Report.^[73] Greenwald has also become a regular guest on PBS's Bill Moyers Journal.,^[74][75] and is a regular guest on the Hugh Hewitt Show, and was a friend and favorite guest of Hewitt's frequent guest host, Dean Barnett.

Popularity[link]

On August 24, 2008, the day before the start of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, which was held in Denver, Colorado, Dan Amira of New York magazine ranked Greenwald as number 36 in his list of "top 40" most popular American political pundits.^[76]

On January 22, 2009, Forbes named Greenwald one of the "25 Most Influential Liberals in the U.S. Media". The magazine placed him at number eighteen, just below Hendrik Hertzberg and just ahead of Andrew Sullivan.^[77]

On July 6, 2009, former MSNBC host Dan Abrams launched a new site, Mediaite, reporting on media figures. The site ranked all print and online columnists in America by influence. Greenwald was ranked # 9, immediately behind Charles Krauthammer.^[78][79]

In August 2009, the Web search engine Technorati ranked Glenn Greenwald's Salon.com blog as number 45 in its "Top 100" list of "the most popular 100 blogs based on Technorati Authority" (in its case, 2,056 blog links in the past six months).^[80][81]

In November 2009, The Atlantic launched a new site, TheAtlanticWire.com, and named America's 50 most influential political pundits ("The Atlantic 50"). Greenwald was ranked #22 on the list.^[82]

In December, 2011, Business Insider named him one of the Politix 50: The Only Pundits You Need To Pay Attention To Between Now And The Election.^[83]

In January, 2012, the British political journal New Statesman named Greenwald one of America's Top 20 Progressives^[84]

Notes[link]

References[link]

Bibliography[link]

External links[link]

• "Glenn Greenwald" – Glenn Greenwald's column and blog hosted on Salon.com.
• Unclaimed Territory, by Glenn Greenwald – Previous personal blog hosted on Blogspot.com; superseded by and moved to Greenwald's Salon.com column and blog on February 12, 2007
• Glenn Greenwald at the Internet Movie Database

Ron Paul
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas's 14th district
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 1997
Preceded by	Greg Laughlin
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas's 22nd district
In office January 3, 1979 – January 3, 1985
Preceded by	Robert Gammage
Succeeded by	Tom DeLay
In office April 3, 1976 – January 3, 1977
Preceded by	Robert Casey
Succeeded by	Robert Gammage
Personal details
Born	Ronald Ernest Paul (1935-08-20) August 20, 1935 (age 76) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Political party	Republican Party (1976–1988, 1988–present)
Other political affiliations	Libertarian Party (1988 election)
Spouse(s)	Carol Wells
Children	Ronnie Lori Rand Robert Joy
Alma mater	Gettysburg College (B.S.) Duke University (M.D.)
Religion	Southern Baptist
Signature
Website	Congressional website Campaign website
Military service
Service/branch	United States Air Force Texas Air National Guard
Years of service	1963–1965 1965–1968
Rank	Captain[1]
This article is part of a series about Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign 2008 presidential campaign 1988 presidential campaign Political positions · Electoral history List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul Ron Paul newsletters Ron Paul bibliography

Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American politician who has been the U.S. Representative for Texas's 14th congressional district, which includes Galveston, since 1997, and a three-time candidate for President of the United States, as a Libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008 and currently 2012. He is an outspoken critic of American foreign and monetary policies, including the Military–industrial complex and the Federal Reserve, and is known for his libertarian-leaning views, often differing from his own party on certain issues.

A native of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Paul is a graduate of Gettysburg College and Duke University School of Medicine, where he earned his medical degree. He served as a medical officer in the United States Air Force from 1963 until 1968. He worked as an obstetrician-gynecologist from the 1960s to the 1980s, delivering more than 4,000 babies. He became the first Representative in history to serve concurrently with a child in the Senate when his son Rand Paul was elected to the United States Senate for Kentucky in 2010.^[2]

Ron Paul has been an active writer and publisher since the late 1970s, when he created the first of several newsletters bearing his name. He has published many books, beginning with The Case for Gold (1982) and including Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom (2011), End The Fed (2009), The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008), Pillars of Prosperity (2008), and A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship (2007). Paul has been characterized as the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement.^[3][4]

On July 12, 2011, Paul announced that he would forego seeking another term in Congress in order to focus on his presidential bid.^[5] On May 14, 2012, Paul announced that he would not be competing in any other Presidential primaries, though he is still competing for delegates in states where the primary election have already been held.^[6]

Early life, education, and medical career[link]

Ronald Ernest Paul was born on August 20, 1935, in Pittsburgh,^[7] the son of Howard Caspar Paul, who ran a small dairy company, and Margaret (née Dumont) Paul. His paternal great-grandparents emigrated from Germany, and his mother was of German and Irish ancestry.^[8][9]

As a junior at suburban Dormont High School, he was the 220-yard dash state champion.^[10] He graduated from Gettysburg College with a B.S. degree in Biology in 1957.^[10]

Paul earned a Doctor of Medicine degree from Duke University's School of Medicine in 1961, and completed his medical internship at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit and his residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Magee-Womens Hospital in Pittsburgh.^[11] Paul served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and then in the United States Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968.^[12]

Paul and his wife then relocated to Texas, where he began a private practice in obstetrics and gynecology.^[13] He refused to accept Medicaid or Medicare payments, but routinely lowered fees for patients who could not afford to pay.^[14][15]

Early congressional career (1976–1985)[link]

While still a medical resident in the 1960s, Paul was influenced by Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, which caused him to read many publications by Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. He came to know economists Hans Sennholz and Murray Rothbard well, and credits to them his interest in the study of economics.^[16]

When President Richard Nixon "closed the gold window" by ending American participation in the Bretton Woods System, thus ending U.S. dollar's loose association with gold^[16] on August 15, 1971, Paul decided to enter politics^[17] and became a Republican candidate for the United States Congress.^[18]

Elections[link]

In 1974, incumbent Robert R. Casey defeated him for the 22nd district. President Gerald Ford later appointed Casey to direct the Federal Maritime Commission, and Paul won an April 1976 special election to the vacant office.^[19] Paul lost the next regular election to Democrat Robert Gammage by fewer than 300 votes (0.2%), but defeated Gammage in a 1978 rematch, and was reelected in 1980 and 1982.^[20] Gammage underestimated Paul's popularity among local mothers: "I had real difficulty down in Brazoria County, where he practiced, because he'd delivered half the babies in the county. There were only two obstetricians in the county, and the other one was his partner."^[21]

Tenure[link]

Paul has served in Congress three different periods: first from 1976 to 1977, after he won a special election, then from 1979 to 1985, and finally since 1997.

In his early years, Paul served on the House Banking Committee, where he blamed the Federal Reserve for inflation and spoke against the banking mismanagement that resulted in the savings and loan crisis.^[22][8] Paul argued for a return to the gold standard maintained by the US from 1873-1933, and with Senator Jesse Helms convinced the Congress to study the issue.^[16] He spoke against the reinstatement of registration for the military draft in 1980, in opposition to President Jimmy Carter and the majority of his fellow Republican members of Congress.^[23]

During his first term, Paul founded the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE), a non-profit "think tank" dedicated to promoting principles of limited government and free-market economics.^[24]

Paul proposed term-limit legislation multiple times, while himself serving four terms in the House of Representatives.^[23] In 1984, he decided to retire from the House in order to run for the U.S. Senate, complaining in his House farewell address that "Special interests have replaced the concern that the Founders had for general welfare.... It's difficult for one who loves true liberty and utterly detests the power of the state to come to Washington for a period of time and not leave a true cynic."^[25][26] (On Paul's departure from the House, his congressional seat was assumed by former state representative Tom DeLay, who would eventually become Speaker of the House.)^[27]

Committee assignments[link]

• House Banking Committee

1984 U.S. Senate election[link]

In 1984, Paul campaigned for the U.S. Senate, but lost the Republican primary to Phil Gramm, who had switched parties the previous year from Democrat to Republican.^[28] Another candidate of the senatorial primary was Henry Grover, a conservative former state legislator who had lost the 1972 gubernatorial general election to the Democrat Dolph Briscoe, Jr.

Inter-congressional years[link]

1985–1997[link]

Following the loss of the 1984 senate race, Paul returned to his obstetrics practice and took part in a number of other business ventures.^[8][29] Along with his former congressional chief of staff, Lew Rockwell, Paul founded a for-profit enterprise, Ron Paul & Associates, Inc. (RP&A) in 1984, with Paul serving as president, Rockwell as vice president, Paul's wife Carol as secretary, and daughter Lori Pyeatt as treasurer.^[30] The company published a variety of political and investment-oriented newsletters including Ron Paul Freedom Report and Ron Paul Survival Report, and by 1993 was generating revenues in excess of $900,000.^[31][32]

Paul also co-owned a mail-order coin dealership, Ron Paul Coins, for twelve years with Burt Blumert, who continued to operate the dealership after Paul resumed office in 1996.^[33][34] Paul spoke multiple times at the American Numismatic Association's 1988 convention.^[33] He worked with his Foundation for Rational Economics and Education on such projects as establishing the National Endowment for Liberty, producing the At Issue public policy series that was broadcast on the Discovery Channel and CNBC,^[24] and continuing publication of newsletters.

1988 presidential campaign[link]

Paul resigned from the Republican Party in 1987 and launched a bid for the presidency running on the Libertarian Party ticket. At the 1987 Libertarian National Convention, the party was split between a Conservative and Liberal wing. Paul represented the conservative wing, which was successful in fundraising, while the liberal wing claimed to have received ten times more (and more favorable) press coverage.^{[citation needed]} Paul argued, "Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the 'right' to extinguish individual life."^[35][36]

In the 1988 presidential election, Paul was on the ballot in 46 States,^[37] scoring third in the popular vote with 432,179 votes (0.5%).^[38] Paul was kept off the ballot in Missouri, and received votes there only when written in, due to what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch termed a "technicality".^[39]

According to Paul, his presidential campaign was about more than obtaining office; he sought to promote his libertarian ideas, often to school and university groups regardless of vote eligibility. He said, "We're just as interested in the future generation as this election. These kids will vote eventually, and maybe, just maybe, they'll go home and talk to their parents."^[37]

Paul considered campaigning for President during 1992,^[40] but instead chose to endorse Pat Buchanan that year, and served as an adviser to Buchanan's Republican presidential primary campaign against incumbent President George H. W. Bush.^[41]

Later congressional career (1997–present)[link]

An earlier congressional portrait of Paul

Elections[link]

1996 campaign