This madness must stop
The following two posts over at The People’s View are a must read in order to understand Salon contributor, Glenn Greenwald’s continuing failure to argue points in good faith, instead favoring condescension and sneering: (1) The art of distraction and the fake assassination scandal; and (2) Bin Laden, al-Awlaki and Glenn Greenwald’s Delicate Fifth Amendment Dance (updated: Greenwald responds, calls TPV “cultist”)
Greenwald’s latest screed on torture is steeped in hypocrisy. First, he attempts to rake Eric Holder over the coals for Holder’s “kill that al-Awlaki guy” stance by referencing a brief Holder filed in 2004 which, purportedly, undercuts his current “kill that guy” position. The brief in question (posted below) is an amicus brief filed by a group of people as “Friends of the Court,” and while the brief was, in a matter of speaking, filed on behalf of Holder and several other people, he certainly did not write it. He signed off on it. The fine lawyers at Arnold & Porter surely drafted it. Yes, he is responsible for the positions taken in that brief. But Greenwald’s article seems to suggest that this was some sort of stand-alone brief that Holder filed in his capacity as a DOJ employee (note Greenwald’s snide capitalization: “Holder’s Brief”)
So Holder filed a brief that sorta but not really (arguments go both ways) conflicts with his current stance on al-Awlaki. Greenwald goes bananas. Greenwald, however, made some downright nasty comments about the evils of immigration in a 2005 blog post, yet when called out on Twitter about it, had nothing but snide retorts. He wrote those statements six years ago, you see, back when he didn’t have any readers; and how sad it is that Cultists had to reach back six years to find grounds to discredit him:
That was a 6 yrs ago: 3 weeks after I began blogging, when I had zero readers. I’ve discussed many times before how there were many uninformed things I believed back then, before I focused on politics full-time – due to uncritically ingesting conventional wisdom, propaganda, etc. I’ve written many times since then about how immigrants are exploited by the Right for fear-mongering purposes. I’m 100% in favor of amnesty, think defeat of the DREAM Act was an act of evil, etc. That said, I do think illegal immigration is a serious problem: having millions of people live without legal rights; having a legal scheme that is so pervasively disregarded breeds contempt for the rule of law; virtually every country – not just the U.S. insists on border control because having a manageable immigration process is vital on multiple levels. But that post is something I wrote literally a few weeks after I began blogging when nobody was reading my blog; it was anything but thoughtful, contemplative, and informed, and – like so many things I thought were true then – has nothing to do with what I believe now.
That’s why Obama cultists have to dig back 6 years into my archives to try to find things to discredit me.
So, in this instance what’s good for the Glenn is not good for the Holder.
I don’t see how this sort of chicanery sits well with anyone. Given Greenwald’s penchant for writing persuasive brief-style arguments based on cherry-picked research, it becomes necessary to follow and read the myriad links he provides in his work lest one be taken in by an intellectually dishonest argument.
As a friend (@vcthree) pointed out on Twitter, Greenwald does not expect his readers to do follow-up research, and indeed, such research would not be required if he didn’t bend, twist, and ignore facts and law at his leisure, in order to make his Principled Points.
So, in the spirit of “you don’t have to be a lawyer to read a brief or understand it,” I have read Holder’s brief; I marked it up, highlighting the important sections, and dashing off a couple of notes. I simply don’t have the time to spend to write a proper post on the subject, but if you take the time to skim the brief, I think you’ll be able to discern what I would have said.
Cheers,
ABL
(Mark-up of Holder Amicus Brief Re Padilla Case on Scrib follows the break)
ABL Mark-up of Holder Amicus Brief Re Padilla Case
[cross-posted here at Balloon Juice]
Great piece. Every time I’ve followed GG’s links, I’ve found that he lied his fucking ass off in describing what was in the links. The man has no integrity and uses tactics that are truly disgusting.
There is really just one main problem with Greenwald:
He cannot explain the privileged position in the universe of his “principles.”
His theology is that certain legal Principles® are always correct, and no deviation is permitted. Ever. The trouble with this is that fallible men wrote those laws. Some, yes, from long experience and wisdom, but they aren’t perfect. They aren’t holy. They are either wise or not; they are either applicable or not.
Even if there were transcendent legal principles, how does he know he has the right ones and the right interpretation of them?
He doesn’t. Neither does anyone else who is dogmatic about anything, whether it’s the geocentric model of the universe or the universality of “due process” to people we are at war with, which was of course never envisioned in the original anyway.
He also apparently missed that day in legal theory class where things like the distinction between murder and manslaughter were taught. Sometimes exceptions provide for more justice, not less.
And of course, like every other “libertarian,” he uses his “principles” to absorb admiration, ostensibly to criticize everyone, but really Democrats more.
He lives in a carefully constructed set of abstractions.
If he honestly cared about civil liberties then he’d take some notice of the tens of thousands who have theirs abridged by their economic status and devote real time and effort to making some difference there. Instead, as the narcissist he is, he seeks the spotlight for himself by loudly pointing to things that don’t really matter to most people because something he considers a principle is somehow involved.
Bradley Manning? WTF? If he did it (giving away classified material) he’s a fairly serious lawbreaker. I have my doubts, because I just don’t see a PFC having that much access to that much in the way of privileged communication. Much like a leaf colonel in the WH basement wasn’t setting the foreign policy agenda during the Reagan years, much as they’d like everyone to think he was.
Bin Laden? SFW! When you commit acts of war against the US bad things will very likely happen to you. Listen carefully to the sleep I’m not losing over that one. (I’ve been told I snore.)
No, Greenwald just likes the spotlight and the mindless adulation from his fanboi legions, some of which are…him. (He’s demonstrably not above sockpuppeting.)
There was a recent WaPo profile of Manning which, beyond discussing a childhood in which a multitude of adults completely dropped the ball on him, also discussed an Iraq War theater which was full of apathy and carelessness because of the utter wrongness of that mission, and which may have allowed Manning to hack into files for which he otherwise had no authorization. http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/who-is-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-manning/2011/04/16/AFMwBmrF_story.html
It’s a story which makes you want for people to have to pass licensing exams before they are entrusted with the gift of raising kids into adulthood. Bright young man who wanted to help people and his life is now destroyed because of a foolish mistake. This country’s prisons are full of this same story, with people who did way less than Manning is accused of, unable to get a new start. Although a lot of those people are of color and/or dirt poor and thus invisible to the loudest performers in the Professional Left.
One thing which I’ve never seen noted: the complete and utter excess of the DADT repeal “activism” in which people prematurely claimed betrayal and went waaaaaaaay over the top was not helpful to a young man like Manning who seemed to believe those sketchy assertions of hopelessness. It would be too much to ask the literal handful of narcissists responsible for the Professional Left’s excess to introspect, but their much more numerous good faith audiences and readers should think about whether sensationalism helps or hurts us.
He completely lied about Manning being tortured as well. Manning certainly wasn’t being given the strawberry shortcake treatment, but to call solitary confinement torture is to twist that term beyond all meaning and completely undermine the international effort to eradicate torture as a means of evidence gathering and terrorism. Greenwald is just out of control IMO, and when called on it, he just doubles down, screams louder, and accuses everyone who refuses to be bullied like this of being in a cult. It is insane. This is America and he has every right to this behavior, but it scares me that he promotes this sort of narcissistic + rageaholic nihilism, when in the real world there are real consequences to out of control behavior and acting on gg’s disdain (see, Manning, Bradley).
Thanks for exposing yet another gg distortion.
Your ability to stir up the firebaggers and the Cult of Glenn continues to amaze and astound me. I swear that the people who make up the Cult of Glenn are also the same people who hang out at Conservatives4Palin.
I’ll start out by saying that I’m a proud Firebagger, card-carrying member of the Greenwald cult, and yes, I’m only commenting here because my PL handlers pay me by the comment. So now that that’s out of the way….
ABL, I’m genuinely curious as to what your position on al-Awlaki is. I read through your write-up in the brief and other than the distinction you made about conjunction use, I’m not seeing a lot of daylight between your interpretation and Greenwald’s. Your point about the conjunction is taken, but wouldn’t that necessarily imply that assassinating US citizens would be okay on an active battlefield within the US? I’m not saying that’s unthinkable, but it does raise a lot of other issues.
So what do you think about this? Does al-Awlaki retain any constitutional rights in Yemen? Wouldn’t it be better if the President afforded some due process through the courts, submitting evidence to prove his crimes, even in absentia? Are we okay with failed attacks on al-Awlaki that kill dozens of civilians, according to Amnesty International?
There can be no discussion at TPV because anyone who disagrees is summarily banned. In protest I refuse to discuss their work, even in more civilized company such as this.
Since Greenwald does that in his Salon column as well (I know people there who have had their accounts deleted) I’m a bit puzzled as to the nature of your complaint.
Is it that you want to be able to disagree with someone who disagrees with you while someone you support can delete those who disagree with him?
It does surprise me that someone who supports a “Libertarian” bent objects to the idea that some other person can do what they want with their own site.
Do you really not see those contradictions?
no, s/he does not.
i do not ban people for disagreeing with me, so the statement about your ill-conceived protest is indicative, perhaps, of your inability to make a counterargument. glenn has the same problem.
peas in a pod.
Was that a reply to me or “bmull” above? Because it is assuredly not my protest you’re describing.
a reply to you questioning bmull. you know you’re my favorite, ponytail dood. :)