Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2221 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Real Name:
[Read the article: Neocons' rejection of the rule of law extends to the personal level]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In other words, in case I'm being too vague for you, when you make claims of 'irrefutable proof', it's good to at least make a game try at sourcing that. A footnote, an attribution, something. See not everyone has spent the morning sucking the liberal tailpipe. It might not be one of those self evident truths handed down from St. Joan of Salon to everyone concerned.
Ignoring the cited evidence and then claiming there is none will persuade nobody.
In the case of Libby, I made clear that, first, a Republican prosecutor, and then a carefully selected jury of 12 people unanimously, found the evidence of his guilt so overwhelming that they concluded there was not even a reasonable doubt.
In the case of Larry Franklin, he had confessed to his crimes in a court of law.
Those are the only two cases about which I said I was personally convinced of guilt.
In the case of Paul Wolfowitz, the World Bank investigative committee examined the evidence and found he was guilty of wrongdoing. Both Conrad Black and the other AIPAC officials are currently on trial. In those cases, I expressly said I had no opinion of their guilt.
The point is that neocons reflexively defend other neocons before the evidence is even known, or even once it becomes conclusively clear. They do so by embracing principles and standards that they reject in every other context.
Nothing you've said relates to, let alone, contradicts any of that. All you've done is come and (a) argued against claims of "irrefutable evidence" where none was made, and (b) insisted that there was no evidence cited to support claims of guilt even when there was evidence presented -- evidence which you simply ignored in order to pretend there was none.
Do you really not see that?
-
orbitboy:
[Read the article: Neocons' rejection of the rule of law extends to the personal level]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn's post is an excellent illustration of the Neocon Manichean--and authoritarian--worldview. Since the Neocons are "the good guys," that means anyone critical of them, or who stands in their way, must be "the bad guys" and "the enemy." The Neocons always act in unison, because there can be no dissent among the ranks. Dissent means you're the enemy. There can be no substantive disagreement in their view. One is either fully on board with their aganda, or one is aiding the enemy. It's authoritaraianism to the nth degree, it's childish, and it's thoroughly manichean. No nuance, just blunt black and white fantasy.
The paragraph you wrote is - more or less - an excellent summary of the major theme of my book: the centrality in American politics of the Manichean world-view, its debate-precluding propreties, the self-destructive behavior it ensures, and - most of all - the amoral and even morally monstruous conduct it justifies.
-
Vishnu:
[Read the article: Neocons' rejection of the rule of law extends to the personal level]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not exactly sure why your article may seem jumbled and inconsistent, I agree with you 100% that your premise is quite coherent and clear. Actaully I would describe it as quite obvious and painfully clear, but maybe that's just me.
I didn't mean the post might be jumbled and inconsistent. I meant that the contradictory claims of the neocons - from situation to situation - might seem to be.
-
DarmsTX
[Read the article: Democrats bear responsibility for restoring habeas corpus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, I understand the importance of habeas corpus, but is the MCA law itself even constitutional?
It's plainly unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean the Supreme Court will rule that it is. Lower courts have sanctioned all sorts of abuses under the Bush presidency.
Habeas corpus rights should not rest on a 5-4 majority -- nor on the health of John Paul Stevens.
-
Just the facts:
[Read the article: Democrats bear responsibility for restoring habeas corpus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To restore habeus corpus, wouldn't the Democrats have to enact new legislation to repeal the MCA? If so, won't The Decider just veto it?
Yes, he can veto it. It's much harder to repeal a horrendous bill than to stop it from being enacted in the first place. So they need a veto-proof majority.
It would obviously be difficult. Is it impossible ? I don't know. Maybe. But they need to try regardless. Make him veto it.
-
Zack:
[Read the article: Democrats bear responsibility for restoring habeas corpus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That bright line is precisely what the “press” failed to convey to the American people, and this monstrous bill was the result of this failure.
Precisely. As I've been trying to explain to people who e-mail in order to inquire/complain about my focus on the media (and it's actually a myth that this focus is recent, but leave that aside), a focus on our broken media is not a neglect of other "more important" issues. That is what lay at the core of all of these other issues -- the fact that our government is able to engage in conduct and obscure what it's really doing and the true implications because of the way our press covers and discusses the government.
That is the principal lesson I learned since I started blogging -- that absent either fundamental reform on the part of the media or the development of real alternatives, discussions of these other issues can generate only limited results. I realized that in the context of writing about the NSA scandal -- the enormous gap between what was revealed and what the press conveyed about it.
That is what explains how George Bush -- once he was caught breaking the law as clearly and deliberately as can be -- was able to go on television and not only admit to his lawbreaking, but vow that it would continue. Someone can write all the pretty, eloquent legal posts they want refuting all of the "legal arguments" offered by the DOJ to justify that conduct. Absent a change in how these issues are discussed, that doesn't matter.