Letters to the Editor
Jay C.
Published Letters: 6
-
Shooter, what on earth are you talking about?
[Read the article: Jamie Kirchick's fantasies of the grave Muslim threat]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That is, if you even know....
The suit you reference is presumably the one where the group of Muslim clerics was harassed at the airport? IOW, several completely innocent men hassled by authorities for apparently no other reason than reflexive anti-Muslim bigotry? The putting-into-action of the very same animus Glenn quite clearly decries in his post?
Do you even notice it when your "counter-arguments" end up making Glenn's points for him?
-
In their own words
[Read the article: American war culture in a nutshell]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It really really delves into the depths of self-parody when any supposedly "serious" commentator can pen a nonsensical statement like;
("this amendment would actually require the Army and Marine Corps staffs to keep track of how long every individual servicemember had spent in either Iraq or Afghanistan, how long they had been at home, how long the unit that they were now in had spent deployed, and how long it had been home").
And expect it to be taken as a serious argument. Jeez, I'm a lifelong civilian with next-to-no familiarity with the military, and even I know that keeping track of this sort of data is something the military does as a matter of basic administration: and have done since the days when deployment details were recorded with quill pens.
Again: the opinions of these clowns are given weight, WHY?
-
Hiatt's "concern"
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt's concern over "costly litigation" for AT&T and Verizon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think there is another element to the WaPo's editorial opinion on telecom amnesty than just the "litigation costs" that could bear some scrutiny; viz.:
As we have said, we do not believe that these companies should be held hostage to costly litigation in what is essentially a complaint about administration activities.
I think it is the "Administration activities" bit that is getting the corporate media's shorts in a knot over this affair, because airing the Bush Administration's surveillance policies and practices in open court is an outcome the Administration, and its media enabler/lackies most surely do NOT want.
The White House has made it clear from the get-go that they regard FISA warrant-requirements (and any other legal strictures on surveillance/intelligence-gathering) as unjustified and unacceptable limitations on the unchecked "Unitary-Executive" power which is the Bush/Cheney gang's main raison d'etre; and having the telecom companies pushed to defend their (the Admin's) actions by proxy is most surely the last thing they want.
So far the Administration has gotten away with their flouting of the law with the tried-and-true "we're doing this all to protect us from terrorists" BS: how likely are they to want to have their - err, novel theories of Executive unaccountability put to a test (ANY test) in open court?
-
WWGGD?
[Read the article: House Democrats reject telecom amnesty, warrantless surveillance]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Despite my generally agreeing with you, Glenn, on about 99+% of the points you write about, your Update # VI to this post made me think a bit - about the tiny nugget of truth buried in Goldfarb's premature Weekly Standard gloat.
What does a citizen (or, by extension, corporate "citizens") do when asked to cooperate in a legitimate investigation by a law-enforcement or governmental agency? I realize that the definition of "legitimate" is the crux of the matter, but if, say, a telecommunications company receives a request from the government to cooperate in an investigation (of any sort) - what kind of assurances do you think they should have to demand before acquiescing?
I realize the Bush Administration has made a regular habit of hoking up all manner of shaky legalistic BS to "justify" their abuses: but, as a lawyer, where do you think someone should draw the line? Demand a Constitutional analysis by a third-party scholar? And what if the government lies (surprise!!) and reassures the citizen: "Oh, yes, we have a perfectly good warrant" - regardless of the actual circumstances: what (in your opinion) should said citizen do?
Of course, I assume that some of these questions would be eventually be answered by evidence presented in an eventual suit against the telecoms (assuming such evidence would even be allowed to be made public!)- but the underlying issues aren't quite as trivial (or as dire) as partisans of the surveillance debate might like to think.
What Would Glenn Greenwald Do?
-
Why do I get the distinct feeling
[Read the article: Major revelation: U.S. media deceitfully disseminates government propaganda]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why do I get the distinct feeling that, should the next President be a Democrat -God willing! - the "mainstream media" will suddenly rediscover (as if by magic) its sense of "objectivity", "responsibility" and "ethics": issue a few half-hearted mea culpas about their slovenly lapses durig the Bush Administration, and revert to their usual practice: skeptical dissection of each and every Administration policy. And of course, Whitewater-style probing of each and every "scandal" anyone can unearth (or invent)?
-
@ omooex - Guantanamo
[Read the article: Supreme Court restores habeas corpus, strikes down key part of Military Commissions Act]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The US naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba was a legacy of the Spanish-American War (1898), and IIRC, the base was "leased" from Cuba on a sort of permanent lease ($5000 in gold yearly) from about 1902 (?) - When Castro took over in 1959, he demanded that the US leave - we see how far that's gotten - so Gitmo remains (legally) as a sort of military-run no-man's-land. Which, of course, I probably why the Bush regime chose it as a dumping-ground for GWOT prisoners in the first place.