Chris Rock used to do a bit about African-American men (he used a different term to describe these men) boasting about conforming to normal standards of decent behavior. As in:

African-American man: "I don't hit MY woman!"

Chris Rock: "African-American, you SUPPOSED to not hit your woman! Don't brag about that s--t!"

Or something like that.

>>>Having said that, the "presumptions of innocence" really applies to the state -- it means the state can't treat someone like a criminal in the absence of due process, not that citizens can't form opinions about someone's wrongdoing without a conviction.

An important clarification -- thanks. I do, for example, hold a firm opinion that OJ Simpson committed murder in 1994, because I was made aware of evidence that I found persuasive, irrespective of the legal outcome. But while the presumption of innocence as a legal concept is meant to regulate government conduct, it is also (and I know you're not suggesting otherwise) a worthwhile consideration in the formation of personal opinions regarding the alleged wrongdoings of others.

I believe, as I think most here do, that an Arab suspected of committing acts of terrorism is innocent unless and until he or she is proven guilty by due process of law. The same presumption should apply equally to Americans or Israelis suspected of committing acts of espionage, and likewise to members of Congress suspected of committing acts of corruption. That's fair, right?

What Goldberg appears to be saying was that the AIPAC guys were improperly and unfairly prosecuted (a position GG has made clear he agrees with) precisely because AIPAC is a "demonized" organization. To Goldberg, not only is AIPAC demonized, but the people who demonize it are powerful enough to cause its members to be unfairly prosecuted. I can't see what else Goldberg could have meant when inserting the word "demonized." And, as GG correctly pointed out, it is quite safe to say that AIPAC's friends are more powerful than its enemies.

Goldberg, from what I've read, is a real idiot. Sadly, he's not even (close to being) the biggest idiot named Goldberg (or even J. Goldberg).

That was really funny... My laughter almost woke the baby (which would not have been funny at all, but thank goodness the little JAP stayed asleep).

:-)

As long-timers here know, I am a Jew, fond of Israel, who has always condemned those "pro-Israel" types who use the bullying, manipulative tactic of cavalierly equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. As a frequent traveler in Left Blogistan I see a lot of criticism of Israel, and most of it is fine with me, even if I (in some cases vehemently) disagree with it.

Usually, the only time I really question someone's good faith is when they go out of their way to compare Israel to Nazi Germany. To make that comparison, a person must either be: (a) abysmally ignorant of what the Holocaust actually entailed, and thus genuinely unaware of the absurdity of the analogy; (b) lacking in even the most basic reasoning skills, and thus genuinely unaware of the absurdity of the analogy; or (c) neither ignorant nor stupid, and thus fully aware of the absurdity of the analogy, but dishonest and mean-spirited enough to use it anyway because it's just a fun way to fuck with Jews. Which describes you?

You are a brainless, soulless, bigoted piece of human refuse. Kiss my Jewish ass.

You touch on something GG has written about before, namely, the continual and ubiquitous misuse of the term "Commander in Chief." Obama appears to require reminding that he is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, not of the nation. The USA doesn't have a commander in chief, dammit!

As always, fuck you, you bigoted piece of garbage.

Wanting to see criminal offenses investigated and prosecuted via due process of law is not a "lynch mob mentality" -- it is the precise opposite.

I'm sure most of us clamoring for prosecutions would like to start with Bush and work down. I know I would. At the same time, I find myself unable to work up any sympathy for those who obeyed directives to slam people into walls, semi-drown them, make them lie in their own shit, etc. There is no excuse for following orders like that. I'm all for punishing those who conceived the torture program, but the actual torturers shouldn't get a free pass either.

You are indeed a cunning linguist.

How, pray tell, might the "reflection not retribution" theory be valid in the context in which Obama used it?

President Obama faces a stark choice between accountability, in the form of meaningful high-level prosecutions, and willful complicity. To fail to punish crimes of this nature is to ratify them, and inaction will make Obama every bit as morally culpable as Bush.

If Obama makes the wrong choice, history may view him even more harshly than Bush. Bush, it could be argued, is an intellectually dim, narcissistic sociopath who is genuinely incapable of appreciating the moral and legal implications of his conduct. Obama has no such excuses.