I want to commend Glenn Greenwald for speaking about these issues, particularly the problems he has with Democrats and Republicans and their enabling illegal torture, wiretapping, invasions of other countries, and so forth. He does so in a way that takes into consideration the arguments that both his allies and his adversaries consider. He is thoughtful about the arguments in ways which journalists in the mainstream have only superficially done. I think he is able to do this because as a constitutional lawyer, he has an understanding about the issues that helps him understand what has gone on, and helps him make his case clearly.

I came home this afternoon from errands and discussions with friends about these issues and I was interested to see and hear what Glenn had added to his posts as updates. I just have to point out that he does a good job.

I liked this part,

"...We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation's past transgressions and reject Bush's corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure."

I like this because in order to move on we have to acknowledge and set right the transgressions of the past. One cannot just say, well, we made a mistake, sorry, and go on like we were innocent and trustworthy. The transgressions of the past are evidence to others that we are not innocent or trustworthy.

I have thought that Obama's vote for FISA was part of his deal with Bush that said he would not investigate or prosecute Bush or the corporations involved in Bush's criminal enterprises, in exchange for Bush not pushing his "suppress the vote" operations.

I have been therefore doubtful that any real effort to investigate and prosecute Bush will ever occur. So, the question is whether this appointment will lead to real investigations and prosecutions, or just the appearence of them.

I agree with what you have said about the trivialities of the "top 10 list" of reporting for 2008. There are surely more important stories.

But, I wonder whether your exposure will actually change any of the work being done by political reporters.

My city's paper has a front page that looks more and more like a way for them to sell papers as a blog. The photos are huge. The percentage of stories about the local prof. sports franchise is high. They want to promote their winning season. The weather is big. Human interest is big. The point is, they are trying to sell papers to an audience that, admittedly, must be impressed by these strategies.

The top ten stories are there because they sold papers, or boosted TV ratings. You would find the kind of stories Greenwald wants them to write if the audience would buy them...

This could be one excuse for their writing the trivial stuff.

Another might be related to the claim that the band played on as the Titanic sank in the north Atlantic. They are just doing what they know how to do in a situation that they are not prepared to cope with. There is something about journalist's education that does not prepare them for real reporting.

Or, maybe it's just Greenwald that thinks that the economy and the law breaking is all that newsy. It takes a lot of effort and time to dig into what's going on with the economy and the issue of torture. The Media just doesn't have the money to put into the research. Besides, all that is not news and up to the minute.

Someone else is supposed to write long windy involved books about the stuff that Greenwald is talking about.

There are two assumptions made by the political class that seem both wrong and too obvious to them for debate.

The first is that the important work in our government done to protect it has to be done in secret. The main thought here, I guess, is that if our enemies knew what we were doing to protect ourselves, then the work wouldn't be very effective.

The second seems to be that democracy is a hindrance. You can't keep making money, nor dominate the world, if you have to pay attention to the needs of democracy. This seems especially true to our political class the more they find themselves unable to compete for economic share, or that their rivals gain enough political or millitary power to fend off American efforts to subvert or destroy them.

I don't think secret work in government is compatible with democracy. But, the political elites feel they need to work in the dark. They feel this sculduggery is more important to their aims than making sure the people are behind them. I guess, the reason they need secrecy is because they know that the people would string them up if they knew all about what was being done in their name.

The philosophers who were here discussing the tragic plight of the national secrurity staff who tried so hard to protect us, and had to torture people, exhibited just the assumptions I have spoken of here. They assume that we gotta do things sometimes that we can't discuss in public like torture, murder, stealing, bribery, and what not, because it would take too long to explain what "needs" to be done, and why what they feel "needs" to be done is in anyone's interest but theirs.

They also think that instead of being concerned about justice, or the will of the people, or the rule of law, they have to circumvent all of that.

I think Glenn is correct to mock their moralistic rationalizations as the childish arguments we hear from criminals fighting prosecution for international crimes.