The point of op-ed's is that they differ from the publication's opinion. That's why they're opposite the editorial page, to provide a contrasting viewpoint. They've got their own columnists and the board for that.
The point of op-eds is they reflect a range of views the editors think is interesting, varied or whatever. Op-eds are still a matter of editorial decisions - obviously, papers don't just publish anything by anyone.
Maybe this is breaching the agree Greenwald had with the editor(s). But independent op-eds able to say whatever they want isn't a principle of journalistic integrity. Questions of that sort revolve around whether you lie or misdirect or run paid articles and so-forth. That you refuse to run an op-ed right when your writer really want it published is a wholly different question, one clearly about the paper having indeed evolved to a left-liberal position while Greenwald maintains his conservative/Libertarian principles - ie, the argument is political.
Maybe this is breaching the agree Greenwald had with the editor(s). But independent op-eds able to say whatever they want isn't a principle of journalistic integrity. Questions of that sort revolve around whether you lie or misdirect or run paid articles and so-forth. That you refuse to run an op-ed right when your writer really want it published is a wholly different question, one clearly about the paper having indeed evolved to a left-liberal position while Greenwald maintains his conservative/Libertarian principles - ie, the argument is political.