Thursday, January 7, 2010


Glenn Greenwald Points Out (Some) Progressives' Hypocrisy on Obama vs. Bush

Another great post by GG, this time on Obama's apologists explaining that there will be a trial for the underwear bomber because "we live under the rule of law." Here's GG:
So in order to justify giving a civilian trial to AbdulMutallab, [Obama terrorism advisor] John Brennan cites the fact that we are "a nation of laws." Progressives defending the decision to treat AbdulMutallab as a civilian criminal are similarly invoking "the rule of law." The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen, for instance, cites The American Prospect's Adam Serwer to argue that "'it's really remarkable that we've gotten to a point in American history where the Republican Party has managed to make fair trials for people who commit crimes 'controversial'" and adds: "that Brennan has to mount a 'defense' for following the rule of law, the same exact way the Bush administration did, suggests just how far the discourse has strayed from reality."

Benen is right that the Obama administration is essentially doing what the Bush administration did with regard to terrorism suspects, but what does that have to do with "the rule of law"? How can anyone possibly argue simultaneously that (a) the "rule of law" requires civilian trials and (b) the Obama administration is following the "rule of law," when: (c) the Obama administration is explicitly denying civilian trials to numerous terrorism suspects whenever it feels like doing so? If someone actually believes that "the rule of law" requires civilian trials for terrorism suspects, then it cannot be rationally argued that the Obama administration is upholding the "rule of law," since providing civilian trials -- which the "rule of law" supposedly requires -- is a policy they are explicitly rejecting.
If the "rule of law" only requires a trial when the State is absolutely certain it can convict someone because it has "plenty of evidence against them" -- and then allows the use of military commissions or indefinite detention when the evidence is weak -- then "the rule of law" is a ludicrous joke. Criminally charging people only when you know in advance you can win -- and imprisoning the rest without the benefit of criminal charges -- is a sham system of show trials that is the opposite of "the rule of law."
It is perfectly fair and accurate to point out that Cheneyite Republicans are being partisan hypocrites for attacking the Obama DOJ for doing exactly that which the Bush administration did: namely, trying some terrorism suspects in civilian courts and holding the rest without trials. But what about progressives who spent eight years accusing the Bush administration of "shredding the Constitution" and gravely assaulting our political system as a result of its detention policy, yet who are now venerating the Obama administration as "upholding the rule of law" even as they deny trials to scores of detainees?



Please tell me you read this post on the LRC! Man, Lew shouldn't have posted it because alot of it is TRUE:

" f***you, tom dilorenzo. have you ever thrown a chair at anyone? i bet you have. i can’t wait for you to link to the latest bit of right wing outrage framed in hyperbolic terms like AN ABSOLUTE MORAL CALUMNY when it’s just about unions or something. the south shall rise again!

f*** you, lew rockwell, and your despicable attempts at piggybacking on ron paul’s success. we must make the banksters shake in their boots! buy end the fed!, despite the fact the banksters don’t care if your sh**** books sell or not.

f*** you, david kramer, with all my heart. can you write? i can if i try, and so should you. have you read anything besides the LRC canon? GUNvernment! democRATS! i long for the day when half the blog is not written by some illiterate putz.

f*** you, stephan kinsella, and your perpetual attempts at provoking more famous libertarians before retreating and crying that THEY STARTED IT and I MAINTAINED ABSOLUTE CIVILITY. don’t you think that gays’ freedom to buttbang is more important than a gang of thieves’ right not to have their decisions overturned by another gang of thieves?

f*** you, gary north and your little masquerade. can someone whose ultimate goal is biblical theocracy really be called a libertarian? apparently, in lewrockwell land, they can. stone the adulterers! burn the heathens! the crash is coming.

f*** you, alternative medicine cranks. thanks for murder. you must be truly demented to believe that because something is banned it must be good? cancer is a fungus? scientists are all in the pocket of big pharma? you belong in a (voluntary) mental ward.

karen de coster, bob murphy, butler shaffer, tom woods, david gordon, mike gaddy, walter block and most of all RODERICK LONG. f****** you would be a privilege. you are the little gems inside this fetid swamp of villainy, each in your own way.

but enough of this, have at you."

Now Bob, you may like these guys, but admit it: you laughed at it because it's all TRUE.

I'm a big fan of LRC and even I have said stuff like this before. It sure is funny.
I lol'd (though I'm kinda surprised he didn't call Hoppe a racist).

I wish LRC had comments so I could take on contributors when they pull the kind of shit the emailer described.

On the other hand, I'm glad LRC doesn't have comments so I don't have to put up with this level of hyperbole making up half the activity.
what was your take on this Bob?
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]