Glenn Greenwald vs. Cass Sunstein -- Battle Royal, in their own words!

[Octafish]

In this July 2008 interview with Amy Goodman, they discuss Telcom immunity, domestic spying and prosecuting Bush Jr.'s criminality:

How Should the Next President Deal with the Bush White House Crimes?

A debate between two progressive legal experts on the FISA bill and the idea of prosecuting of Bush and White House officials for criminal acts.

The whole article is worth reading. Thanks to "Fair Use" here are a few excerpts...

In this corner, Glenn Greenwald:

The idea that this wasn't a reversal is just insultingly false. Back in December, Senator Obama was asked, "What is your position on Senator Dodd's pledge to filibuster a bill that contains retroactive immunity?" And at first, Senator Obama issued an equivocal statement, and there were demands that he issue a clearer statement. His campaign spokesman said -- and I quote -- "Senator Obama will support a filibuster of any bill that contains retroactive immunity" -- "any bill that contains retroactive immunity." The bill before the Senate two weeks ago contained retroactive immunity, by everybody's account, and yet not only did Senator Obama not adhere to his pledge to support a filibuster of that bill, he voted for closure on the bill, which is the opposite of a filibuster. It's what enables a vote to occur. And then he voted for the underlying bill itself. So it's a complete betrayal of the very unequivocal commitment that he made not more than six months ago in response to people who wanted to know his position on this issue in order to decide whether or not to vote for him. That's number one.

Number two, the idea that this bill is an improvement on civil liberties is equally insulting in terms of how false it is. This is a bill demanded by George Bush and Dick Cheney and opposed by civil libertarians across the board. ACLU is suing. The EFF is vigorously opposed. Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd, the civil libertarians in the Senate, are vehemently opposed to it; they say it's an evisceration of the Fourth Amendment. The idea that George Bush and Dick Cheney would demand a bill that's an improvement on civil liberties and judicial oversight is just absurd. This bill vests vast new categories of illegal and/or unconstitutional and warrantless surveillance powers in the President to spy on Americans' communications without warrants. If you want to say that that's necessary for the terrorist threat, one should say that. But to say that it's an improvement on civil liberties is just propaganda.

In the other corner, Cass Sunstein:

Well, I speak just for myself and not for Senator Obama on this, but my view is that impeachment is a remedy of last resort, that the consequences of an impeachment process, a serious one now, would be to divide the country in a way that is probably not very helpful. It would result in the presidency of Vice President Cheney, which many people enthusiastic about impeachment probably aren't that excited about. I think it has an understandable motivation, but I don't think it's appropriate at this stage to attempt to impeach two presidents consecutively.

In terms of holding Bush administration officials accountable for illegality, any crime has to be taken quite seriously. We want to make sure there's a process for investigating and opening up past wrongdoing in a way that doesn't even have the appearance of partisan retribution. So I'm sure an Obama administration will be very careful both not to turn a blind eye to illegality in the past and to institute a process that has guarantees of independence, so that there isn't a sense of the kind of retribution we've seen at some points in the last decade or two that's not healthy.

SNIP...

Well, there has been a big debate among law professors and within the Supreme Court about the President's adherent authority to wiretap people. And while I agree with Senator Feingold that the President's position is wrong and the Supreme Court has recently, indirectly at least, given a very strong signal that the Supreme Court itself has rejected the Bush position, the idea that it's an impeachable offense to adopt an incorrect interpretation of the President's power, that, I think, is too far-reaching. There are people in the Clinton administration who share Bush's view with respect to foreign surveillance. There are past attorney generals who suggested that the Bush administration position is right. So, I do think the Bush administration is wrong -- let's be very clear on that -- but the notion that it's an impeachable offense seems to me to distort the notion of what an impeachable offense is. That's high crimes and misdemeanors. And an incorrect, even a badly incorrect, interpretation of the law is not impeachable.

So. Who demonstrates INTEGRITY in the above example?

If you have a moment, please tell: Why do you think that way?

16 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Greenwald
	15 (94%)
	Sunstein
	1 (6%)
	Neither
	0 (0%)
	Both
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[banned from Kos]

1. I much prefer Sunstein in general

but given what you quoted GG wins for once.

[Octafish]

3. Spoiler Alert

Sunstein never got better.

Obama Confidant s Spine-Chilling Proposal

Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.” In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper’s abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.

PS: Greenwald wrote that.

[banned from Kos]

4. If there were a way to measure the "cloud" of perception on CT

about 95% of that cloud would be anti-government CT.

We are perilously close to a precipice in anti-government paranoia. I see it here (a lot). Sunstein is trying to combat it.

[Octafish]

6. Right you are.

Here's where I noticed:

CIA memo - Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

Nine years, already. Geesh.

[Overseas]

22. Thank you for posting this. Reminds me of what I want to forget I know--

how long these techniques have been in use, have been practiced on us all.

[sabrina 1]

40. Well, I hope you are speaking for yourself. I don't see this anti-government sentiment

that you seem so paranoid about. What I see are people questioning government policies. That's a very healthy thing in a democracy. Sunstein wanted to prevent that. That is a scary thing in a democracy.

Don't be scared of the government, leave that to Libertarians and Republicans. Democrats love Government, hadn't you heard? Now if you had said that 95% of the far right are paranoid about the government I would have agreed with you.

[sabrina 1]

12. Do you know anything about Sunstein? Just wondering!

[Electric Monk]

2. Bush and Cheney belong in jail

[Octafish]

5. For the rest of their natural days.

...all that criminality. Life behind bars at hard labor, just for outting Valerie Plame -- and for that they would be lucky.

[dionysus]

7. where's the "Greenwald is a Pompous Douchebag Either Way" option?

[RobertEarl]

8. haha

Greenwald is right-on.

History will show that letting Bush and Cheney walk away without any legal burden was a huge mistake. Obama's people have made way too many excuses for not bringing the perps to the dock.

[SidDithers]

9. ...

Sid

[Electric Monk]

24. Your constructive pearls of wisdom give me thrills, I can't deny.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

10. More wit and wisdom from the Angry Black Lady blog?

Or did you make that up all by yourself?

[Luminous Animal]

11. Calling Greenwald a douchebag started on right-wing blogs...

Way back when the vast majority of DUers were advocates against undeclared wars, unilaterally against bombing the shit out of people in those undeclared wars, against a unitary executive, against a massive surveillance state, etc., etc.

[sabrina 1]

13. Exactly, he was hated and is hated by the Right. That's how you could tell a rightwinger

They hated Michael Moore, Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, Dennis Kucinich, Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf, Chris Hedges, Greg Palast, Cindy Sheehan and anyone who told the truth about what was being done to the Constitution by the Bush/Cheney criminals. Thank god for those who in times when the very foundation of this country is under attack, have the courage to speak out.

[dionysus]

15. he's a giant among men..

[sabrina 1]

18. No, actually, he's not. That is why it is so odd that he was targeted by the BOA and their

contractors hired to smear and discredit anyone who was looking into the Wikileaks story. He's a blogger, yet for some reason he was on the list of people to be smeared and discredited. Thanks to Anonymous, that nasty, and possibly illegal plot to engage in the politics of personal destruction against a blogger, would never have been known. But even though it was exposed, and the main perp had to quit, people are wondering about all these coordinated attacks on him. After all, BOA paid a lot of money for the 'opposition research'. And it appears, from what was brought before Congress that the FBI may have been involved.

To think that this could happen should be a matter of concern for anyone who cares about this country, and it is. And as I said, people are wondering why are these attacks, with the same talking points always, the few little stories dug up, by whom? repeated over and over again.

But if this is an extension of that plot, it sure is not working, is it. What you are seeing is not a defense of Greenwald so much, as anger that anyone on the 'left' would participate in such garbage. People are a lot more aware now of these dirty tricks and not so easily fooled.

Your lame snark only confirms how easy it is to influence some people, but fortunately fewer and fewer these days. Even if I did not like Greenwald or any of the other progressive writers who have been targeted such as Michael Moore, for daring to speak about important issues, I would never enable the attempt to silence them. THAT is the issue which you seem to have missed entirely.

[dionysus]

55. you know two reasons why I'm not a fan of Glen?

1) his own pompousity, which i read here when his articles which are posted in quadruplicate
2) the subset of DUers who think he is the progressive sweet bebbe jeebus (despite the fact he's more of a one note libertarian than a liberal) who use his articles to tell people how much dems suck

i've never read nor do i give a shit what the right wing blogs think of him. if it wasn't for DU, i wouldn't know who the hell he is...

glens not always wrong, but he's almost always a douchebag.

[sabrina 1]

57. You've never read him but you know he's a douche?

So where were you during the Bush administration? Hard to believe you did not read his superb deconstruction of Republican lies which is what gained him support from the left in the first place. We used to oppose Bush policies, remember?

I'll go with Russ Feingold's opinion of him rather than someone on the internet repeating the empty charges coming from a few radical extremists so far to the left on Human Rights issues they are hard to distinguish from the Right. Feingold is a good friend of Greenwald's mainly because of his attacks on the Bush policies that destroyed the US Contsitution and for which Feingold fought against during that disastrous period in history. He has many friends in the Democratic Party so all of this makes people wonder, who IS trying to silence him.

How do you feel another progressive writer, btw, Jeremy Scahill?

[dionysus]

58. i've read his articles. they are posted here over and over.

that's why i think he's a douchebag.

what i clearly stated was that i have never read what right wing blogs have to say about him.

[sabrina 1]

59. Well lots of his articles were posted here during the Bush years which is where most

DUers found out about him. So if you only read what was posted here, did you not agree with when you read his articles during the Bush years?

And what rightwingers said about him were often reported on his blog linked to from here and other progressive sites. You didn't have to go to rightwing sites to know what they were saying about him.

[Octafish]

14. How profound.

Greenwald called Bush a war criminal and showed why he thinks that:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/19/stewart/index.html

Sunstein worked to stop that kind of talk, as well as the investigation:

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/10/main-obama-adviser-blocking-prosecution.html?m=1

Who's the douche, dionysus?

[Luminous Animal]

25. On right wing blogs circa 2004-2008.

[sabrina 1]

35. I did not see your comment before I posted mine.

Great minds think alike or the truth never changes!

[sabrina 1]

33. You will find that on Free Republic, try their archives!

Red State too airc!

[sabrina 1]

16. Why do I feel Greenwald has far more integrity than Sunstein? Because Sunstein proposed

Government spying on the internet against people HE deemed to be 'conspiracy theorists'. Of course what he meant was clear, anyone who questions the government at all. And he wanted to plant 'spies' in chat rooms, in online communities to 'influence' the 'thinking' of people.

One of the scariest public proposals I have ever heard coming from someone on the Left. And I often wonder when I see some of the people claiming to be democrats, spewing rightwing talking points, attacking progressives egc, if the program did go into effect. I guess that would get me on his list as a 'conspiracy theorist'.

A truly scary thing coming from someone who was once said to maybe be a SC nominee. Let's hope not.

[Octafish]

19. The guy who wants to silence conspiracy theorists also wants us to ''move on'' from Bush crimes.

Obama Adviser Cass Sunstein Rejects
Prosecution of “Non-Egregious” Bush Crimes

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/07/21/obama-adviser-cass-sunstein-rejects-prosecution-of-possible-bush-crimes/

Small world. Crazy world. And it's owned and run by warmonger-traitors like Bush and his cronies and henchmen.

Thank you for standing up to them, sabrina 1.

[sabrina 1]

34. Omg, he really is completely ignorant of what the law is all about:

Prosecuting government officials risks a “cycle” of criminalizing public service, [Sunstein] argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton — or even the “slight appearance” of it.

Does he even realize what he said there? So many things. But first, he's saying that DEMOCRATS should not engage in retributive efforts. Who suggested that? That would mean there were no crimes but we wanted revenge. He's either denying there were crimes, or saying 'let's ignore them so we don't look like we are seeking revenge'. I don't know which is worse. Because he should know that no matter what Democrats do Republicans WILL at the first opportunity, do what they did to Clinton.

So his main concern is that if democrats prosecute crimes, then if democrats commit crimes, Republicans will prosecute in return.

But as Turley said so simply. 'How about we just prosecute crimes, theirs and ours'.

What is frightening is that I read he was considered for the SC. The man has zero respect for the law. The only reason he did not want to prosecute the Bush war crimes, torture etc, was because he is afraid that they will do the same thing.

He doesn't care if crimes were committed iow, he only cares about politics. Despicalbe man with no integrity whatsoever. But we knew that already.

[Octafish]

82. SUNSTEIN wants to ''MOVE ON'' from illegal Bush TORTURE and DOMESTIC SPYING lawbreaking.

Government Nanny Censoring "Conspiracy Theories" is Also Responsible for Letting Bush Era Torture and Spying Conspiracies Go Unpunished

Washington's Blog
Thursday, October 7, 2010

Cass Sunstein was the main adviser to the Obama White House advocating against prosecuting Bush administration officials for torture, illegal spying, and other crimes. As constitutional expert professor Jonathan Turley wrote in 2008:

Close Obama adviser (and University of Chicago Law Professor) Cass Sunstein recently rejected the notion of prosecuting Bush officials for crimes such as torture and unlawful surveillance.

The exchange with Sunstein was detailed by The Nation’s Ari Melber. Melber wrote that Sunstein rejected any such prosecution:

Prosecuting government officials risks a “cycle” of criminalizing public service, [Sunstein] argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton — or even the “slight appearance” of it.

Sunstein did add that “egregious crimes should not be ignored,” according to one site, click here. It is entirely unclear what that means since some of us take the views that any crimes committed by the government are egregious. Those non-egregious crimes are precisely what worries many lawyers who were looking for a simple commitment to prosecute crimes committed by the government.

CONTINUED w links...

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/10/main-obama-adviser-blocking-prosecution.html

Gee. I'm so old, I still remember when being a United States citizen meant being in favor of jailing crooks and traitors.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. So over St. Greenwald the Pure. n/t

[sabrina 1]

20. Lol, I'm sure he'll be crushed!

[Bolo Boffin]

31. I don't give a fuck if he's crushed or not. n/t

[sabrina 1]

36. Well, he won't know whether you are over him or whether or not you care if he is crushed,

because while he has made a name for himself and you know who he is, he doesn't have a clue that you even exist.

If I cared so little about someone, no one would know one way or the other, because I would care so little I would not be commenting on them one way or the other.

I love the internet. People take the trouble to go into a thread to let everyone know how little they care about something. It always looks like they are contradicting themselves to me.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. I'm crushed.

[sabrina 1]

41. Don't be, we can't all be as fascinating as apparently Glenn Greenwald is!

He doesn't know who I am either!

[Bolo Boffin]

44. And here I was, hoping you could introduce us. n/t

[sabrina 1]

47. Sigh, no, unfortunately.

I have a bad habit of standing up for people who are clearly the objects of a smear campaign. Whether they are Democrats or Republicans or Independents or anything else.

I still believe that if you don't agree with someone, you attack them on the issues. If you can't do that, then give them the credit they deserve for being right. That takes a person of character.

People who resort to smears and lies when they cannot prove someone wrong are generally of the Karl Rove type, and no one would call him a person of character.

And the smear mongers turn on the those who don't join them in their fun and games, and you can count on them calling you a 'fan' or a 'groupie'. It never fails, they have a very limited supply of talking points.

But no, I am not a fan, a groupie, nor have we ever met, nor probably ever will. I just despise and always have, Rovian tactics. They are a sign of weakness. I admire people of character.

No sorry, Greenwald is not a friend of mine. Just someone that for some reason a lot of people are trying to silence and censorship by smear job is pretty despicable to me.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. Would you mind stopping with the smear tactics on me then?

Since you don't like them.

[sabrina 1]

50. I address what you write. What you wrote so far was to repeat the smears against Greenwald.

It is not a smear to point to what you wrote and to state what I believe about those smears and where they are coming from and why.

Write about what Greenwald wrote and I will talk about that. But you have not said one word about what he wrote. You have not discussed him as a writer. You have recycled the smears. What am I supposed to address?

Point to the smear and I will apologize for it if it is there.

[Bolo Boffin]

52. Oh, you are and you know you are.

So it goes.

[sabrina 1]

60. So you can't, I didn't think so.

[Octafish]

21. So sad you feel that way.

Here's some of what Glenn Greenwald has pointed out:

Bush lied America into war. WikiLeaks show the State Department serves Big Business and the Pentagon launders money for Wall Street thieves. While he voted for Obama, he said presidents do not have power to be judge, jury, and executioner.

That's for starters. The United States would be better off with more of the truth.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

26. There are people here who are heavily invested in truth not outing

It's easy to spot them. Just look for complete lack of character when it comes to uncomfortable truths being aired. They're worm people, and they're not worth your time. And for my part, thank you for the truth you've consistently told here over the years, irrespective of the uncomfortable places it sometimes leads to.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Hi, you seem to be speaking about me in the third person.

What truth am I heavily invested in not getting out?

[Octafish]

79. Free discussion on the Internet really bothers them.

You are most welcome, DisgustipatedinCA. We're seeing the change in public perception Sunstein and Zelikow fear -- We the People no longer trust the crapola coming out of the tee vee.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2014785

Lots of years fighting these bastards will pay off. Thank you for being there in the Good Fight, my Friend.

[Electric Monk]

27. Meanwhile, it's "Austerity time! We can't afford _blank_ anymore." for everyone else.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Yes, and Glenn also supported the Iraq war and the Citizens United decision.

And his support of maximum border security and his jokes about Obama raping a nun.

http://blog.reidreport.com/2012/01/on-bullying-glenn-greenwald-and-the-nun-rape-smear/

And his defense of a white supremicist during which he unethically taped witnesses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

Between St. Greenwald and Cass Sunstein, I'm taking Cass. YMMV.

[sabrina 1]

38. We knew that in 2005 when he first started blogging. He wrote about it in his book

on the Bush gang, 'How Would a Patriot Act'.

Did you think he tried to hide it or something? I mean it's only been posted fifty times over the past few days by people who thought they 'got him'. Just about everyone knows what his position on the war was since he first started blogging and gave him a lot of credit for realizing he was lied to, unlike so many of our own elected officials who still support it.

He never had to tell anyone btw, because he did not start blogging until 2005 and no one knew who he was before that. He was a private citizen. Like 70% of the rest of the country who supported it.

And your second link always appears along with the four other talking points when Greenwald Derangement Syndrome surfaces every time he writes something truthful about US policies.

What's amazing to me is that someone can live to be his age and the only four or five things the smear mongers could come up with were these same old talking points. It makes YOU look bad, like you can't debunk what he says, so you use the talking points, most likely dug up the HBGary gang, outed by Anonymous and found to have had Greenwald on a list of people to discredit for their Boss Bank of America. See, he was writing about BOA at the time, and someone wanted to silence him. Pretty scary frankly and possibly illegal, now brought to Congress by Hank Johnson for review.

I would hate to be doing the work for BOA that HBGary can't do anymore since their main guy was forced to quit when he was caught in the act of planning to smear people, like Greenwald. You are on the wrong side in this. Those talking points stink of corruption and each time I see them, I remember BOA, working with the FBI to smear decent people and paying millions to contractors like HBGary to dig up dirt to try to destroy them. I would be ashamed to enable that kind of behavior, no matter who it was aimed at.

Oh yes, and Hillary Clinton, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and just about all of our Democrats also supported the War in Iraq.

You seem so 'shocked' that a private citizen with no inside knowledge or access to intelligence, like a majority of the people at the time, out of trust that no president would lie about something like that.

So what do you think of our elected officials who DID have access to the intelligence, as we know now thanks to Sen. Graham, knew they were supporting a lie, had way more power to try to stop it than a private citizen, but went ahead anyway, and then continued to fund it for years, even after there was no doubt at all that the whole thing was a massive crime and a lie? Are you shocked at all by their collaboration?

These talking points are lame. If BOA was paying HBGary for them, they were robbed. But it's very disturbing to see any democrat engage in the smear campaign also, rather than prove HIM WRONG!

Raw Story did the right thing today, finally. I hope other blogs who have had these smears spread all over them will do the same. At least one other has thankfully. It makes Democrats look like fools.

And btw, Greenwald has many Democratic friends in Congress. I wonder what they think of blogs now.

No wonder they all stopped visiting them as they used to. Who wants to wade into this kind of mire? But how sad, because it was nice to be able to talk to them. I talked to Gen. Clark and Russ Feingold, a good friend of Greenwald's btw, on a blog. If only people would disagree with someone on the facts. I used to think only the Right engaged in these smear tactics. It's been a rude awakening.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. Let's apply that kind of rationalization to Cass Sunstein.

We got this turrible thing he said in the OP. And he wants to find a way to interrupt the epistimic closure of conspiracy theorists.

What else ya got on Sunstein? Or is that it?

[sabrina 1]

42. Um, I didn't write the OP.

But when he made that proposal, it was news. Sunstein was in a powerful position so what he thinks about issues like this are definitely important and they are news. So like all political news, especially since he was named as someone who might be nominated for the SC, it was very important to know his position on issues.

He wanted to flood the internet with spies. For what purpose? What business is it of the government what people think about anything? And what next? I mean people talk about these things in their homes, at work on the phone. Would he want to police people at work, at home, everywhere? That was a very dangerous threat to freedom of speech and if you can't see that, I can't help you. And it came from a person who might have been a candidate for the SC.

Greenwald is a blogger.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. I know that, but you did write the post I replied to.

OK, so there the "that's not impeachable" thing and the "interrupt conspiracy theorists' epistemic closure" thing.

What else?

[sabrina 1]

45. What else what?

As Thurley said, among others, Sunstein doesn't seem to think that crimes should be prosecuted because if we prosecute them they might prosecute us. And Thurley made a suggestion. How about we prosecute them and us IF they or US commit crimes? That's a simple enough concept that you would think someone hoping to be a SC justice might understand.

What do you think? Should we not prosecute powerful people? The laws are only for the little people? That seems to be Sunstein's 'legal' opinion.

If you tortured someone, what would happen to you? If you lied about something that got a lot of people killed, what would happen to you?

Sunstein thinks that nothing should happen to you IF you are a wealthy, important person in a position of power.

I asked you before, what business is it of the government what people talk about amongst themselves? I know in China they 'interrupt conspiracy theorists' as you put it, or as Sunstein and China really mean, anyone criticizing or questioning the government, but we are not China. Personally I think Sunstein was late to the game. Lots of people around trying to silence people, like Glenn Greenwald eg.

So you agree with him then?

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Yes, we got that. You've two turrible things on Sunstein.

Anything else? Because you said that people down on Greenwald always repeat the same four or five things. So I'm asking if those two things are all you've got on Sunstein.

[sabrina 1]

49. Sunstein is being criticized for what he wrote.

Greenwald is being lied about and attacked as a person. He has been accused of writing about what he writes about because 'he is gay'. He has been attacked because of where he lives, he has been accused of being a white supremacist because as a lawyer he represented a criminal. Twisted, nasty, personal attacks and lies.

The one thing I have not seen the smear mongers do is what this OP has done re Sunstein, discuss and try to debunk what he wrote.

So, one person is being criticized for what they wrote.

The other is being attacked as a person with vitriolic libelous smears and invented conspiracy theories.

See the difference?

Post an OP on what Greenwald wrote and argue about that. I will be happy to disagree with him if he is wrong, and from what I've seen, if anyone can prove him wrong, he will admit it.

[Bolo Boffin]

53. And so is Greenwald.

And the matter of violating the privacy of witnesses by illegally recording them, that also is something Greenwald did while defending the white supremicist.

Since you won't produce anything else on Sunstein, I'm going to assume at long last that you have nothing else. So putting them side by side, I'm sticking with Sunstein, as turrible as he is.

[sabrina 1]

54. You are not making sense. What are you looking for? I have nothing personal I would want to say

Sunstein, if that is what you mean. I leave that sort of thing to smear mongers. His policies are all I am interested in.

And where is what Greenwald wrote being discussed in the smear threads?

As for that one incident. That kind of thing happens on a regular basis and the very fact that you mentioned, YET AGAIN, proves my point. It is a fairly common occurrence that happens in courtrooms all over the country every day. Judges admonishing lawyers, threatening and sometimes actually doing much worse, holding them in contempt. The judge, btw, commended him for his work on that case. Funny how that is never mentioned.

And yes, that is one of the 'talking points'. A lame, insignificant event that someone had to work to find and if that's all they found from his career as a lawyer, he must have been a pretty good lawyer.

I spent a lot of time in court when I studied court stenography and I saw judges send lawyers home, threatening them with sanctions which also often happened for doing much, much worse than that.

That right there is a perfect example of someone or some entity or entities, searching and finding very little but one minor incident. And because that's all they found, leaving out the rest of the story, magnifying it hoping people will not know much about courtrooms and spreading it all over the internet for one purpose, to silence a blogger.

And what again, does a minor incident in his career so long ago, have to do with what HE WROTE?

Congratulations, you helped them do their dirty work.

And still nothing about what Greenwald wrote.

[Overseas]

27. Totally in Greg's corner. Torture on a massive scale. Practiced by Americans directly.

Falsifying the need to invade and make war on Iraq. Their actions were a horrifying culmination of previous abandoned or diverted prosecutions.

And let's just see for a moment-- the relative gravity of--

our possibly appearing unfairly partisan versus the commission of war crimes.

Democrats actually worried about appearing partisan in prosecuting war criminals because their political party had impeached a democrat for lying about his tawdry sex life? It almost felt at the time as though the impeachment proceedings against Clinton were designed to provide a future excuse-- "Gosh, such proceedings divide the country. We can't ever do this again. What a waste of resources."-- because there were monsters in the wings who would need the cover.

And the monster war mongers roared forward. I don't want to pretend they didn't practice torture and deliberately false warfare any more.

I saw what they did since the last time the consequences were softened up.

I just can't write off torture. Tossing innocents into dungeons for years. No can do.

[Electric Monk]

29. There are two post #27s in this thread. Odd, that. nt

[Octafish]

61. It Gets Bigger: Greenwald broke the Gonzo-Comey-Ashcan-on-a-Deathbed NSA Superspy scandal story...

Secret Government run wild, from coast-to-coast universal wiretapping to Wall Street bailout insider cronyism to warmonger forgiveness and domestic spy immunity -- and it's OK by Bush and it's OK by Sunstein. Things are starting to get much clearer, all of a sudden.

Comey's testimony raises new and vital questions about the NSA scandal

(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)
Glenn Greenwald
Wednesday May 16, 2007 06:16 EST

The testimony yesterday from James Comey re-focuses attention on one of the long unresolved mysteries of the NSA scandal. And the new information Comey revealed, though not answering that question decisively, suggests some deeply troubling answers. Most of all, yesterday's hearing underscores how unresolved the entire NSA matter is -- how little we know (but ought to know) about what actually happened and how little accountability there has been for some of the most severe and blatant acts of presidential lawbreaking in the country's history.

SNIP...

Amazingly, the President's own political appointees -- the two top Justice Department officials, including one (Ashcroft) who was known for his "aggressive" use of law enforcement powers in the name of fighting terrorism and at the expense of civil liberties -- were so convinced of its illegality that they refused to certify it and were preparing, along with numerous other top DOJ officials, to resign en masse once they learned that the program would continue notwithstanding the President's knowledge that it was illegal.

SNIP...

But the more important issue here, by far, is that we should not have to speculate in this way about how the illegal eavesdropping powers were used. We enacted a law 30 years ago making it a felony for the government to eavesdrop on us without warrants, precisely because that power had been so severely and continuously abused. The President deliberately violated that law by eavesdropping in secret. Why don't we know -- a-year-a-half after this lawbreaking was revealed -- whether these eavesdropping powers were abused for improper purposes? Is anyone in Congress investigating that question? Why don't we know the answers to that?

SNIP...

Comey and Mueller were clearly both operating on the premise that Card and Gonzales were basically thugs. Indeed, Comey said that when Card ordered him to the White House, Comey refused to meet with Card without a witness being present, and that Card refused to allow Comey's summoned witness (Solicitor General Ted Olson) even to enter Card's office. These are the most trusted intimates of the White House -- the ones who are politically sympathetic to them and know them best -- and they prepared for, defended themselves against, the most extreme acts of corruption and thuggery from the President's Chief of Staff and his then-legal counsel (and current Attorney General of the United States).

CONTINUED...

http://www.salon.com/2007/05/16/nsa_comey/

...In total agreement with you, Overseas. Killing and maiming and torturing men, women and children in the name of Big Oil or Empire or Organized Crime is treason. I will not write that off. Some, however, can.

[sabrina 1]

63. I remember that. I remember Comey telling how he had rushed to Ashcroft's hospital room to protect

him from Gonzalez, on Cheney's orders, coming to get him to sign off on what even he believed was illegal. That whole story read like James Bond novel. Comey driving through the streets at night in order to be there to protect Ashcroft from possibly being coerced into signing an illegal document before Cheney's men arrived.

I also remember when Comey resigned, which was before we finally heard his story. He was crying and made what I thought at the time was a strange comment when he thanked his co-workers and 'those of you who are no longer here but you know who I mean'. Later it was revealed, in a Newsweek article title 'Palace Revolt' which I cannot find anymore, sadly as it was an excellent article, that it wasn't just Comey and Ashcroft who believed the spying was P, sveral other Republicans in the DOJ gave up their careers and left rather than participate in the illegality.

Here is a reference to the article with a few quotes Palace Revolt

I wish I could find the original article, it was excellent and made me think twice at the time about my assumptions that everyone in the Republican Party was on board with Bush/Cheney.

What a long way we have come since then. Comey, despite being a Republican, was an honorable man and apparently there were others fighting behind the scenes all the while we were thinking that Republicans were in lockstep regarding those illegalities. He must be heart-broken that the illegalities he fought against, have now been made legal, retroactively, letting the perpetrators off the hook, once again.

[PCIntern]

51. Years ago, as a teen, I dated Sunstein's now ex-wife.

Small world...brilliant gal, just brilliant.

[Octafish]

62. Have you heard from her since?

Hope she and he are OK, relationship-wise. I wouldn't wish a divorce on anyone.

Like they say during the NFL draft, Frank33 has me intrigued about the "Why" angle of things:

Cass Sunstein Is Not Only Evil, He Is Really Quite Cognitively Impaired

By: Frank33 Sunday February 14, 2010 1:34 pm

EXCERPT...

Sunstein quotes Philip Zelikow about the topic of CT’s. Zelikow is similar to Sunstein and although Zelikow is likely eligible for a War Crimes Trial at the Hague. Zelikow compares political dissent to a harmful biological infection.

Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 commission, says that “(t)he hardcore conspiracy theorists are totally committed. They’d have to repudiate much of their life identity in order not to accept some of that stuff. That’s not our worry. Our worry is when things become infectious . . . . (t)hen this stuff can be deeply corrosive to public understanding. You can get where the bacteria can sicken the larger body.”

SNIP...

Neither Watergate nor MKULTRA could be considered CT’s. It was known by June 17, 1972, the day after Nixon’s agents were arrested, that they worked for Nixon. There was no conspiratorial speculation about MKULTRA, CIA mind control programs, because no one would even believe the USA Government would secretly give LSD and other drugs to people. Sunstein ignores the most obvious CT’s that were widely discussed during those wonderful 60?s and 70?s. Was the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" a government conspiracy to justify the Vietnam War. The answer is YES. Another important CT of that time was government spying and covert activities against anti-war protestors. Again, yes, the US government through the COINTELPRO program was spying on and waging secret war against American Citizens.

CONTINUED...

http://my.firedoglake.com/frank33/2010/02/14/cass-sunstein-is-not-only-evil-he-is-really-quite-cognitively-impaired/

It is a small world, Doctor. Filled with a few bad apples and a lot of good people! Thankfully.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. You're so clever about how you work talking about your conspiracy theories into GD.

That's the real reason for this battle royal, isn't it? You know Glenn Greenwald's a hot topic, you've got a beef with Sunstein because he wants to find a way to get conspiracy theorists to reconsider their delusions, so you post this topic hoping to get to talk about all your conspiracy theories in General Discussion.

As a host of Creative Speculation, I invite you to discuss your conspiracy theories there. That's the place for it. It's waiting for you.

[Octafish]

65. For years, you have called me a "conspiracy theorist" - repeatedly. So what's not true, bolo boffin?

For example:

You are a conspiracy theorist, Octafish, and my previous post concerned the OP topic.

I've asked you for years to show me where I'm posting stuff that is not true. Yet, you can't.

[Bolo Boffin]

67. Yes, because you are, and because you smear me

By claiming I'm here defending George Bush when I call you on your conspiracy theories. Follow that link you've provided and you'll find me responding to your smears when I said that.

Lots of people are conspiracy theorists, Octafish. So much so that there is a group here at DU dedicated to discussing them. So no shame, Octafish. You've got a dedicated sandbox. Come play! I promise the pixels are as black and white there as here.

Why, even my dear sainted Memaw told me herself she thought they had JFK killed. Guess where we were when she said that? In the Sixth Floor Museum, standing right next to Oswald's sniper nest! Conspiracy theories happen, even in the best of families. It's no reflection on you in any other area of your life.

[Octafish]

68. Again, what did I write that is not true?

Show me. If you'd like, go through my journal. It may save you time.

BTW: Great sig line you're using. Hilarious.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. To do that would fulfill your attempt to discuss CT in GD.

My sig line is there to remind me. I'm not always successful, especially in the face of repeated insult.

[Octafish]

70. So, you can't find something I wrote that's not true?

FYI: The only thing I repeat on Democratic Underground is my loathing for the traitors who've run this country into the ground since November 22, 1963.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. You need to take this desire to discuss conspiracy theories to CS. n/t

[struggle4progress]

56. If anybody knows how to navigate the politics of bringing Bush et al to justice,

I'm all ears

But I think the reality is this: it usually takes many many years to bring a head-of-state with his cronies before the courts anywhere -- and we have essentially no history of doing so in the US

Greenwald's noise is, finally, almost vacuous: he has no analysis; he merely has a PoV. And, sadly, the fact that I might often be somewhat inclined to agree with his PoV doesn't mean that he says anything useful or informative

[Octafish]

66. It's not noise. It's a pardon. The unelected moron Ford pardoned Nixon.

The corrupt Poppy Bush pardoned Weinberger and the rest of the Iran-Contra traitors.

His corrup and unelected Dim Son commuted Scooter Libby's sentence and that shut down the Plame Affair.

No crook. No trial.

What we need are some people unafraid of the crooks. The necessary backbone seems to be in short supply in Washington DC.

Seeing what happens to those who oppose them -- at the ballot box and in small aircraft -- I can't really blame them.

[Overseas]

73. No Truth and Reconciliation even.

I thought that would be too mild for the Bush gang war criminals. I wanted trials and convictions.

Yet even a logical impeachment was taken off the table in 2006.

Because it would appear too divisive?

How divisive was torture and treason?

[struggle4progress]

76. The bottom line being: you also have no idea how to navigate the necessary politics.

It is cheap and easy to jabber about "backbone" -- but political power comes from organized numbers

[Octafish]

78. We can't get organized without good information. That's where Corporate McPravda & Sunstein come in.

Among the most important things to discuss in a democracy are matters or war and peace; and financial matters, such as taxation and fiscal policy. Today, billions and trillions of dollars in business is conducted in complete secrecy. These areas have become the perview of Wall Street and their handmaids in Washington, resulting in three decades-plus of Reverse Robin Hood.

The process for prosecuting presidents is the same as for anyone else: A law is violated. The crime is reported, investigated, and prosecuted. The officials involved in the investigation, prosecution and trial are not, obviously, the same as those who investigate the Rovewannabe who steals 100 lawn signs the week before a primary, but the principle is exactly the same as when lying the nation into an illegal, immoral, unnecessary and, apart from Big Money, disastrous war -- No one is above the law.

In the present case, Greenwald vs. Sunstein 2008, we had two approaches to dealing with a "president" who lied America into war. The facts are there: Bush and his cronies lied openly and often to the American people. From torture to indiscriminate bombing of civilians, U.S. and international laws were violated.

WAR CRIMES ACT OF 1996

18 U.S.C. § 2441 : US Code - Section 2441: War crimes

Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

CONTINUED...

Dusty Foggo, Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff show the corruption to be rampant, if not systemic. So, given the choice between Greenwald's "too much information" and Sunstein's "no need to worry about that" I choose the former. I think that requires backbone, or what I define as a character with leadership qualities and utmost integrity. That kind of person demands that no one is above the law, whether a traitor, partisan, citizen or crook.

Consider the "president" George W. Bush, who lied America into an illegal, immoral, unnecessary and disastrous war by tying the terror attacks of September 11 to Saddam Hussein. After no connection was ever found, let alone WMDs, Bush said: "Money trumps peace" and then laughed. And the press with not even a single follow-up question did zilch about it. Congress, for whatever reason, did zilch. So, it's up to We the People. That is hard for us to do because, apart from DU, most know zero about it.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

72. Kicking. And thanks to the DUers with a sense of history...

that extends well beyond 2008.

And thanks to the name-callers, too; you're a never-ending source of entertainment.

[Overseas]

74. We have certainly lived through a lot of dangerous, brutal change.

We got fracked to the bedrock -- Nuremberg. The Geneva Conventions. Habeas corpus.

[Octafish]

86. You are most welcome, WorseBeforeBetter!

Everybody knows Rush Limbaugh Who ever heard of Phil Zelikow?



PS: Missing the boat isn't the expression: Only an authoritarian douche would believe in censoring speech.

PPS: Sorry I missed your post at first read, WorseBeforeBetter. I want to make sure everyone is appreciated.

[reorg]

75. very informative thread, thank you n/t

[Octafish]

81. You are most welcome, reorg! Here's my problem with Dr. Zelikow...

My biggest problem with the guy has to do with his interpretation of what President Kennedy really said during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Dr. Zelikow and his co-author Ernest R. May wrote "The Kennedy Tapes." The work has misinterpreted important statements and, thereby, reinterpreted history -- what the scholars call "revisionism."

What JFK Really Said

The author checked the Cuban-missile-crisis transcript in The Kennedy Tapes against the recorded words. He discovered "errors that undermine its reliability for historians, teachers, and general readers

by Sheldon M. Stern
The Atlantic

EXCERPT...

An unforgettable moment in these unique historical records concerns JFK's apprehension that military action in Cuba might touch off the ultimate nightmare of nuclear war, which he grimly describes at a meeting on October 18 as "the final failure." Brian McGrory, of The Boston Globe, who listened to this tape with me in 1994, after it was declassified, used those words in the lead of his article on the newly released tapes. But when I checked the transcript recently, I was unable to find "the final failure." Certain that the editors must be right, since they had technically cleaner tapes, I listened again; there is no question that Kennedy says "the final failure." The editors, however, have transcribed it as "the prime failure."

SNIP...

The participants then discuss evidence that work on the missile sites is continuing. They debate whether to add petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL) to the list of quarantined materials immediately, or to wait twenty-four hours to see if talks proposed by UN Secretary-General U Thant produce a breakthrough. McGeorge Bundy, Kennedy's national security adviser, suggests that they "leave the timing until we've talked about the U Thant initiative." The inaccuracy in The Kennedy Tapes is especially bizarre in this case, with Bundy saying "leave the timing until we've talked about the attack thing." These last two examples—"the destroyers " and "the attack thing"—could easily leave a reader wondering what in the world these men were talking about. (Three days later, on October 29, U Thant was mentioned again. JFK asserts, "We want U Thant to know that Adlai is our voice." But The Kennedy Tapes transcribes this line as "We want you to know that Adlai is our voice.&quot

October 27 saw the darkest moment in the crisis. An unconfirmed report was received at midday that a U-2 spy plane had been shot down over Cuba by a Soviet SAM missile, and the pilot killed. On the tape of the late-afternoon meeting Kennedy discusses whether to order an air strike on the SAM sites if the incident is repeated (a delay that produced consternation at the Pentagon). He declares that two options are on the table: begin conversations about Khrushchev's proposal to swap Soviet missiles in Cuba for U.S. missiles in Turkey, or reject discussions until the Cuban crisis is settled. Kennedy chooses the first, with the caveat that the Soviets must provide proof that they have ceased work on the missile sites. He repeatedly refers to "conversations" and "discussions" and concludes, "Obviously, they're not going to settle the Cuban question until they get some conversation on Cuba." Incredibly, The Kennedy Tapes substitutes "compensation" for "conversation." It's easy to imagine how Cold War veterans like Rusk, Bundy, and McCone would have reacted to any suggestion of compensation for the Soviets in Cuba.

On October 29, the day after Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles, the President and his advisers, relieved but not euphoric, conclude that surveillance and the quarantine will continue until the missiles have actually been removed. After a lull in the meeting, during which the conversation turns to college football, the President observes, "I imagine the Air Force must be a little mad," referring to the division of responsibility for aerial photography between the Air Force and the Joint Chiefs' photo-reconnaissance office. The Kennedy Tapes transcribes this as "I imagine the airports must be looking bad," which must leave many readers scratching their heads: the removal of the missiles had nothing to do with Cuban airports. Kennedy then ponders why, in the end, the Soviets decided to back down. He notes, "We had decided Saturday night to begin this air strike on Tuesday." No effort was made to conceal the military buildup in southern Florida, and Kennedy wonders if the impending strikes pushed the Russians to withdraw their missiles. The Kennedy Tapes, however, has JFK saying "We got the signs of life to begin this air strike on Tuesday," making his shrewd speculation unintelligible.

ONE particular error, among scores not cited above, seems to epitomize the problems with these transcripts. On the October 18 tape Dean Rusk argues that before taking military action in Cuba, the United States should consult Khrushchev, in the unlikely event that he would agree to remove the missiles. "But at least it will take that point out of the way," The Kennedy Tapes has Rusk saying, "and it's on the record." But Rusk actually said that this consultation would remove that point "for the historical record." The historical record is indeed the issue here.

CONTINUED...

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/05/stern.htm

Personally, I understand Dr. Zelikow's a fine fellow. Brilliant, well-read and a great writer and thinker, people who know him say. I wonder why he'd be so interested in creating such a conservative perspective on history.

[Chan790]

77. Geez, that's like asking me to choose between dogshit and catshit for dinner.

Sunstein is a staunch advocate of authoritarianism; an ideologue who is all in favor of oppression as long as he's on the oppressing side and not the oppressed side. If unilateral behavior and police-state governance is wrong when the GOP does it, it's wrong when the people suggesting it claim to be Democrats.

Greenwald is a conservative libertarian who much of the anti-war left has taken as one of their own when he's so very clearly not of similar mind with them on anything except being anti-war.

I'll be very clear: staunch supporters of Sunstein are no better than supporters of Dick Cheney, while staunch supporters of Greenwald are no better than supporters of Ron Paul...and neither group should feel welcome at DU. I don't care what their positions or credentials are, by their ideas they are known...their ideas are not those any Democrat should be proud of. There is more to being a Democrat, a progressive or a liberal than self-identification.

[Octafish]

80. Not at all: GG wants you to choose your dinner. CS wants you to eat the only thing on the menu.

Even if they were largely formed at Mickey D's, my taste buds know enough not to be stuck in a rut. They even can tell there's different flavors to what Corporate McPravda spews:

Everybody knows Rush Limbaugh. Who ever heard of Phil Zelikow?

[sabrina 1]

83. So you just discovered Glenn Greenwald?

For a 'conservative libertarian' he sure made enemies on the Right during the Bush administration. But he made some very good friends on the Left, such as Russ Feingold and Sen. Dodd.

How do you feel about other writers who were once considered by the Left to be Civil Libertarians when they were writing about Bush, eg, Matt Taibbi, Jeremy Scahill, Naomi Wolf, Naomi Klein eg. Have they too all turned into 'conservative libertarians'?

From my reading of all of them, those now thrown under the bus by some on the Left, nothing has changed regarding the issues they all wrote about during the Bush years, so I keep asking, but never get a response, since they have not changed on the issues, what is it that they have done to be now characterized as the exact opposite of what they were during the Bush years? Eg, was Glenn Greenwald wrong about Bush in your opinion and we were all just too partisan to see that he was actually just protecting us from terror?

[Chan790]

84. Not at all...

Making enemies of the mainstream right is not purely the domain of civil libertarians, note that the Paulites do it quite adeptly...hell, even the Birthers and Tea Partiers manage it. No, Greenwald is a conservative libertarian because he espouses the conservative economics, antipathy to government, and isolationism of a conservative libertarian. An inconvenience to your argument that it cannot be said of Taibbi, Scahill, Wolf, Klein, etc. Notable is that I'm not critical of any of them.

To answer the question, Greenwald hasn't changed what he's doing and I was hostile to him even back then when people were ignoring all the anti-liberal views he held because he was vocally-critical of Bush and the GWoT.* I feel vindicated that he's every bit the enemy of the left that I was saying even back then that he was. I just wish we could rid DU of his crap.

*-Note that the neither the GWoT or the Bush-era militarism was ever a great concern to me...I was too concerned with the shitty domestic economic policy and regressive social policy.

[sabrina 1]

85. Well, your last sentence explains a lot. I guess Russ Feingold wasn't smart enough

to realize what a rightwing Conservative Greenwald was.

And I suppose some of us see a direct relationship between Bush's WOT/Phony Wars based on lies in the ME, and our economic situation.

But for most on the Left, like Greenwald, the destruction of civil right here and abroad, the War Crimes committed by the Bush administration, were a little bit more important than anything else. Something about the value of human life over profits.

Greenwald is way to the left of you, by your own admission then. And if you don't like Greenwald, maybe it's best you don't read Scahill or Klein or any of the other progressive writers anymore. It's hard to tell the difference most of the time since all write about ISSUES, the same issues they always wrote about, which according to your logic makes all of them Conservative Libertarians. Which is what I thought.

As we have seen on DU, all of them have been criticized along with anyone else who remains committed to the same principles they held under Bush. Which is why so many democrats have signed off online forums and have taken their activities to real life activism, leaving the field to those whose views are more to the right. It's interesting to watch, and maybe a good thing, since not much is going to be accomplished with the kind of commentary that now takes place on political blogs.