Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2123 Editor's Choice: 18
-
MBF:
[Read the article: Presidential candidates and "substance"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I understand that professional ethics requires tact and what not on Glenn's part, but, to put it in the common vernacular, f@ck that no good S.O.B. Who the F_ck does he think he is? Who the F_ck do these ruffians think they are? As if their some kinds of Gods blessing us with their m___ther F_cking wisdom. F_ck him, F_ck them.
Trust me, I'm with you. It wasn't about "professional ethics." I just think there's a value in being able to steer dialogue like that, precisely because it ends up being so revealing.
I'm starting pretty much to view most national journalists the way I see right-wing bloggers and similar Bush followers -- as beyond reason, as people to talk about (rather than talk to). That's why I didn't answer John Harris' last e-mail (except in the post I wrote). Why bother. I'm not looking to cultivate relationships like that because they do no good.
There may be some marginal benefit in how these critiques shape how they report, what they do. But I think, for the most part, they are so submerged in their mentality that the only real option is to cultivate alternatives to them which compete, rather than trying to reform them.
-
Armagednoutahere
[Read the article: Presidential candidates and "substance"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When Clinton came around in '92 I hoped he was secretly a 60's radical just playing the system to get elected. When he got elected it became clear he was almost as corporate-friendly as the Republicans, and I knew the best we could get was pretty much what we got--a more reasonable tax code with balanced budgets (even surpluses) and a (fairly) high standing in a (comparitively) peaceful world. Not bad considering what we've got since then with Bush, but still far too friendly with the power structure that makes corruption a basic principle.
I think it's important to note, too, that whatever the Clintons were in 1992 or 1995 -- when they arrived in Washington having never been there before -- is not what they are in 2007. They've been wallowing in the fruits of Beltway political power for close to two decades now, have made tens of millions of dollars as a result, and are deeply submerged in all of the power games and cyncial Beltway transactions which are drowning the country.
They've become their own network, and it perpetuates itself strictly for its own sake. If some people find that appealing or tolerable because they have the big "D" after their names, great. But I don't.
After this father-son-successor presidency ends, I also think the last think the country needs is a husband-wife-successor team to really re-impose the stamp of royal power and aristocratic rule back on the country. Passing political power back and forth between families has its own dangers, and that's just another reason why Clinton II is something to be avoided urgently.
-
"Andrew McCarthy":
[Read the article: Your modern-day Republican Party]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think McCarthy is right that the better question is: what should be the scope and venue of the review? Of course, such an "arcane" issue will never get raised in any forum where it's likely to get much attention.
Really? Where is the part of the Constitution that even arguably allows U.S. citizens to be charged with and punsihed for crimes without full due process. While I realize what a profound authority Andy McCarthy is, I prefer the Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
And the Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
If you find any exceptions to those rights for "wartime," let me know.
-
Zack:
[Read the article: Your modern-day Republican Party]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn left out the first sentence out of Ponnuru’s post where Cato’s Ed Crane “says he was disappointed with Romney's answer to his question the other night.”
The very idea that Mitt Romeny could not say without hesitation that he as President had the absolute right to declare any U.S. citizen an “enemy combatant” (the title of Ponnuru’s post) without any sort of review was “disappointing.”
Actually, I did include that part of Ponnuru's post:
(though Ponnuru did note, without specifying the reasons, that Cato's "Crane says he was disappointed with Romney's answer to his question the other night").
And although Ponnuru doesn't specify why Crane found the answer "disappointing" -- whether because he was open to the idea of imprisoning Americans without review or because he wasn't ready to embrace that power fully -- my guess is, based on Cato's views, that Crane (as opposed to Ponnuru) was upset that Romney would even consider such a power. The views of Cato these days is definitely not consistent with core Republican viewpoinhts -- i.e., Cato believes in the Constitution.