Letters to the Editor
-
Thanks
Thank you, Glenn, for all the writing you do. And all the work and thought which goes into it. Thanks for everything.
-
Continuing to explore.
.formed the foundation of ostensible Western morality in foreign affairs and war accountability for the last six decades.
I have frequently said that war is not a football game, but I can't help but notice that for a significant part of modern history, it has been treated as if it were. Certainly the concepts of a "Declaration of war" and "Terms of Surrender" indicate that there are rules that are abided by even when the game is mortal combat. By definition, terrorists don't abide by the rules. This is why BushCo went to such great lengths to coin and define the term "illegal combatant" to describe why the "normal" rules of war don't apply. Even if we're willing to concede that the existence of Al Qaeda and other groups and their resorting to random violence directed at civilians are reasonable justification to "change the rules" in order to accomodate a new reality, having changed the rules, we now have to live with the results.
One of the first casualties of this rule change is the concept of Victory. Every time we talk of "Winning or Losing" in Iraq or in the larger GWOT, we are still using the old 'football game" model of warfare. In a football game, there is an end state after which the game is over. If the Geneva conventions are to be regarded as "quaint" then certainly any talk of victory should be regarded as delusional.
The Administration (and McCain) can't have it both ways.
-
Strawman much, Glenn?
Yes Glenn, I do believe that the same rules shouldn't apply to the US as I would impose on North Korea. If you don't, then you don't see any difference between the police shooting someone who's been spraying a mall with gunfire and the person spraying the mall with gunfire.
US military might can be used to make the world a better place. Has in the past, will in the future. I believe that democracy is better than theocracy, that a society in which you're free to love whomever you want is better than one in which you'd be stoned to death. If you'd rather we stand by and not try to make that change in the world, that's fine, but we disagree. Making the world a better place doesn't just mean changing hearts and minds - it can also mean removing/killing those who make it a worse place. I'm fine with that.
-
Ufansius
I'm extremely conflicted about this Diaz matter. On the one hand, he's clearly a martyr (in the noblest sense of the word). On the other he did, indeed, break the law. I've been reading for months about the determination of the Bush administration to create an Executive that is free to break the law with impunity and the concurrent calls for the United States to adhere to the rule of law, not men.
I think what makes conduct like that of Diaz' heroic is precisely that he knows there may be severe consequences to his lawbreaking and does it anyway. Those who advocate civil disobedience under certain circumstances don't generally advocate for the right to break the law without consequences, but rather, advocate for the justifiability of breaking the law and accepting the consequences.
I think Daniel Ellsberg's disclosure of the Pentagon Papers is the classic case, where he came close to an extremely long prison term in order to stop the Vietnam War. I don't think he denied that he broke the law - just that he felt like he had an obligation to do so, and was ready to suffer the consequences.
Having said all of that, there can be government misconduct that makes punishment unwarranted. The Ellsberg case, for instance, was dropped as a result of Nixonian misconduct. And if the Bush administration runs around slapping SECRET on everything, then it is abusing the very laws they would seek to enforce, which would have to be a consideration -- as a matter of prosecutorial discretion if nothing else.
But your broader point is undoubtedly true -- you can't argue selectively that certain lawbreakers should be free to do that with impunity while simultaneously insisting upon a strict application of the rule of law.
-
Book event in Boston
Is there any chance of there being a book event in Boston/Cambridge MA?
-
Greenwald - "It would seem like a good opportunity for those with strong views about his conduct to attend and express those views."
I might wish that a large number of people with "strong veiws" about Glenn Greenwald's writings would attend some of his book promos "and express those views," but that's not my style. If I wanted to say, "I hope a lot of people show up and start a riot," I would say so mor directly. But in Greenwald's case, that would presume that there are a large number of people who believe that Glenn Greenwald is worth their time and effort.
I hope that Professor Yoo, is his upcoming appearances in which it seems that Glenn Greenwald will try to rally leftist protestors, will be provided with the heavy security that he deserves. And that those who would deny him the right to speak wojuld themsleves be shut up. That is, unless Glenn Greenwald thinks that military detainess in Guantanamo Bay deserve Consitutional protections but that an American law school professor does not.
-
Instead of GOP straw mentality, I'd rather munch frozen blueberries.
I decided to copy Paul's web page to give more attention and reflection. I'll sit at a nearby lake and watch ripples, sunshine gleams, and underline phrases and make notation. It's the rainbow trout season. Thanks Mr. Paul Rosenberg.
If I call you Paul Rosenberry instead of Paul Rosenberg.... It's because I've overdosed on the year end bags and bowls of Blueberries.
Thanks again, Mr. Paul Blueberry.
Thanks to Glenn Greenspinach
-
Paul Rosenberg's Reveiw
We often hear talk about the trivialization of our news, our politics, our public sphere, and somehow, by association, it seems that--collectively at least--we somehow think that this trivialization is itself a trivial matter. To the contrary, Greenwald shows that nothing could be more important, because until we deal with it, nothing else fundamental can be done.--Paul Rosenberg
The above is the conclusion of Rosenberg's review of Greenwald's book. That sentiment of, 'Isn't it trivial to be commenting on the trivial?' can be found in the comments on this blog nearly every single time Glenn writes about some journalist, blogger or talking head bringing yet another 'trivial' matter to the fore. Someone will always tell Greenwald, and us readers, "Pshaw, just ignore them and they will go away". They will also ask with derisive self righteousness, "Why are you surprised?" Even though, of course, neither Greenwald or many if any of the previous replies to Greenwald's post wrote of being surprised.