Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Weekly Standard's ACLU Smear Indicts Only Itself
Even for The Weekly Standard, this bitter, juvenile McCarthyite attack on the ACLU by Thomas Joscelyn sputters with so much fact-free, impotent, and self-defeating rage that it's hard to believe it was printed. Right in the headline, it oh-so-cleverly smears the ACLU as "Al Qaeda's Civil Liberties Union"; it ends by proclaiming the group to be "al Qaeda's useful idiots"; and it's filled in the middle with all sorts of trite innuendo circa 2002 that anyone who believes in the Constitution -- i.e., radical "far leftist" doctrines such as "trials" and "due process" -- secretly harbors love for the Terrorists and hatred for America ("The ACLU has worked diligently to undermine America's stance in what was formerly known as the 'war on terror,' and has even been willing to disseminate propaganda on behalf of our jihadist enemies"). What the article actually -- and ironically -- reveals is how much contempt The Weekly Standard and much of America's Right has for the nation's core political values and how, in the process, they do more to aid Islamic extremists than even those who directly fund and advocate for them.
The primary piece of incriminating evidence Joscelyn waves around in his little briefcase is this ACLU-produced video featuring five Muslim men who were held at Guantanamo without charges for years and then released. In the video, they recount the torture and abuse to which they were subjected, as well as the impact which prolonged, due-process-free imprisonment by the U.S. has had -- and continues to have -- on their shattered lives.
Joscelyn insists that -- even though they've never been charged with, let alone convicted of, anything -- these men are guilty, evil Terrorists. To make his case against them, he relies on Bush-era documents containing unproven, untested, and uncharged allegations. But what he dishonestly -- though understandably -- fails to note is that each of these individuals are available to appear in the ACLU video because they were released from Guantanamo by the Bush administration [Moazzam Begg (released 2005); Omar Deghayes (released 2007); Bisher al-Rawi (released 2007); Ruhal Ahmed (released 2004); Shafiq Rasul (released 2004)]. If, as Joscelyn claims, the ACLU are Al Qaeda's "useful idiots" for producing a video containing interviews with these individuals, what are Bush officials who released them onto the streets? He also fails to note that time and again, government allegations against Guantanamo detainees -- the source on which he principally relies -- have failed to withstand even the most minimal judicial scrutiny to which the 2008 Supreme Court ruled detainees are constitutionally entitled. The Government has now lost roughly 28 out of 33 habeas corpus hearings brought by detainees since the Supreme Court's ruling, often before some of the most right-wing, executive-branch-deferring judges in the country, who have found there is no credible evidence to support the government's accusations.
So lame and desperate are Joscelyn's smears that his attack ends up indicting himself, his magazine and his political movement far more than his intended target. Here are the profoundly un-American "principles" he implicitly -- and at times explicitly -- embraces:
1. If the Government asserts accusations against Muslims, those accusations shall be deemed true, even if they're made in secret and without being tested by any court.
2. Even if the Government voluntarily releases Muslim detainees from captivity without charges, they should still be assumed to be guilty, dangerous and evil Terrorists.
3. Muslim detainees have no right to counsel, no right to be charged with a crime, no due process rights to contest the accusations against them, and no right to be free of torture.
4. Anyone who works to provide basic due process and legal representation to Muslim detainees, or who publicizes their wrongful detentions and abusive treatment, shall themselves be deemed suspect of harboring allegiances to Al Qaeda.
To see how alien this is to any political values historically understood as "American," compare The Weekly Standard's neoconservative manifesto to what Thomas Paine thought about such matters, as expressed in the final paragraph of his 1790 Dissertations on First Principles of Government:
An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Or compare the neocon mentality to Thomas Jefferson's warning, in a 1789 letter to Paine, that trial by jury -- which the ACLU safeguards and most of America's Right despises -- is "the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
Between (a) an organization that works tirelessly for basic due process and Constitutional liberties for everyone and (b) a political movement which demands their rejection, does it really take any effort to see which side is vigorously defending core American principles and which side is waging war on them? And given how due-process-free imprisonment is one of the most potent recruiting tools for Islamic extremists (as reported by David Rohde, Johann Hari, Gen. McChyrstal, and even the Pentagon's own 2004 Task Force) -- to say nothing of the endless aggressive wars cheered on by The Weekly Standard's play-acting warriors -- does it take any effort to see who Al Qaeda's "useful idiots" and stalwart allies truly are?
As Hari recently documented after interviews with ex-Muslim militants, the most effective weapon against Al Qaeda's recruitment efforts is when human rights groups in the West -- such as the ACLU -- demand equal, humane and Constitutional treatment of Muslims:
When they saw ordinary Westerners trying to uphold human rights, their jihadism began to stutter. Almost all of them said that they doubted their Islamism when they saw a million non-Muslims march in London to oppose the Iraq War: "How could we demonise people who obviously opposed aggression against Muslims?" asks Hadiya. . . . [Another explained]: "So, when Amnesty, despite knowing that we hated them, adopted us, I felt -- maybe these democratic values aren't always hypocritical. Maybe some people take them seriously . . . it was the beginning of my serious doubts."
By stark contrast, the policies cheered on by Joscelyn's right-wing comrades have done more to fuel and enable Al Qaeda than any other single factor:
Every one of them said the Bush administration's response to 9/11 -- from Guantanamo to Iraq -- made jihadism seem more like an accurate description of the world. . . . [One ex-militant] started to recruit other students, as he had done so many times before. But it was harder. "Everyone hated the [unelected] government [of Hosni Mubarak], and the US for backing it," he says. But there was an inhibiting sympathy for the victims of 9/11 -- until the Bush administration began to respond with Guantanamo Bay and bombs. "That made it much easier. After that, I could persuade people a lot faster."
The ACLU (with which I consult) not only defends the most elemental American liberties (e.g., the State cannot imprison people without charging and convicting them of a crime), but also renders Al Qaeda's demonization-dependent recruitment efforts against the West far less effective. By stark contast, the Constitution-hating, warmongering and tyrannical template embraced by The Weekly Standard is precisely what Al Qaeda needs -- and desires -- in order to thrive. The more the U.S. is represented by the warmongering and anti-due process face of Bill Kristol, the better it is for Al Qaeda; the more it adheres to the liberties and rights guaranteed by the Constitution and defended by the ACLU, the weaker Al Qaeda becomes. Kristolian neocons want and need a strong Al Qaeda in order to justify the array of wars and civil liberties erosions they crave, and everything they advocate is designed to achieve that goal -- or, at the very least, guarantees that outcome.
The greatest irony of the last decade is that the very people who most despise core American principles and do more than anyone to fuel Islamic extremism have anointed themselves the arbiters of American patriotism and protectors of American security. The reality is that it is this very movement which simultaneously advances definitively un-American political values and strengthens anti-American Islamic radicals -- both by design and by effect. The Weekly Standard's due-process-hating manifesto this morning is a vivid exhibit for how that has worked.
- Posted in
49 Comments so far
Show AllThe Weekly Standard has devolved into America's version of "Der Strurmer."
The extremists at The Weekly Standard and others in their fold stand beneath the Jesus and USA banner, while the extremists in the Taliban and Al Queda stand beneath another. Yet they share the exact same values in common, and are therefore brethren. They believe in the repression, ignorance and the squashing of life. The war on terror should be fought by putting them all in the same cell and letting them fight it out.
When in the hell will they ever extol the Jesus who overturned the tables of the usursyus moneylenders.
The better part of my nature has been sorely tested over the last nine years. I once was willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, till proven wrong. Even so, I never believed that people couldn't change for the better, and that if people really understood what was truly valuable in human society that they would naturally choose decency, trust, honor, and compassion once they had simply learned what civilization itself was built upon. I am now struggling terribly with what I'm now coming to see as naivete`. Once upon a time I would have said 'not all conservatives are fascists'. (Accepting that there are fascists occupying both sides of the fake political duopoly) I'm not proud of this, but I now simply wish these assholes would just hurry up and die. They've ruined an awful lot of hope, and they are more dangerous than any Arab terrorists, most of whom are legitimately filled with righteous hatred, and have not one single avenue for redress of legitimate grievances. Empire is evil, and has not a single truly moral (religious or secular) tenet within it that isn't simply a convenient tool du' jour, to be tossed away like the Whore of Babylon when finished with it. If there were another frontier left on this Earth I would seek it.
The real terrorists actually do hate us for our freedoms, and it is those freedoms which they are warring against. Al Qaeda is simply a useful faux enemy, and their warmongering against them actually empowers them, further justifying more warmongering and dismantling of core Constitutional principles. This is very deliberate. The real terrorists are fascists who have been attacking the very foundations of this republic, and doing it for longer than I've lived. Although I will have to say that they've pulled out all the stops since 2000. I've been in utter awe at the speed with which they've divided our nation, and so twisted language that it is no longer reliable. Reason itself is on the defense, and I fear that discourse is soon to be insufficient to right what is wrong.
I tried to make it clear that this is happening on both sides of the aisle. It would require too much space and time for me to have said everything I could have on that subject. You're right to call it a case of 'good cop / bad cop'. It is exactly how I've described things for most of my adult life. Obama certainly hasn't impressed me, and most of the so-called 'right's' accusations of him being a socialist, or any kind of liberal, is pure bluster, intended to make us forget about the expansion and total restructuring of government, and the origins of our economic woes under the Republican assholes. Of course Obama has only supported and/or expanded most of those policies. If he were a socialist I might be impressed by him. He isn't. Democracy is about 'socializing' political power equally, without regard for racial, religious, political, or economic status. Every tax dollar ever spent was a socialist dollar, and that is true whether we talk about education, sanitation, health care, or police, defense, or bailing out Goldman Sachs. That means justice itself is socialist, or had better be or it isn't justice. I'm not alone in being tired of seeing selective socialism. I want to see our Congress have teeth enough to put a halt to executive usurpation. As it stands they are well over half complicit in the institutional corruption, and somewhat less than half wet toilet tissue. The 'right' has gained more ground from a Democrat controlled Congress than they did when the Republicans ran all three branches.
Jill, you got it! My very, wealthy uncle gives mega bucks to both the Democrats and the Republicans ( but usually more to the Republicans) and he is poor in comparison to the super,wealthy, elite 1%. They own both parties lock,stock, and barrel. As the pistol packin mama from Alaska would say...YOU BETCHA!
"I always wonder when I see this type of thing if we're not really seeing a well orchestrated attempt at propaganda. Right wing=bad cop, Obama=good cop. If true, why are their policies exactly the same?
Every point Glenn makes is true. I just think these same points apply to Obama and the Congressional Democratic leadership as well."
If you've even bothered to read a couple of Greenwald's columns you would be well aware that he has extensively and repeatedly bashed Obama.
Yes, Obama and many Dems believe the same as the right wing neocons. Guess what? That makes them right wing neocons too. Right Wing == Bad Cop. Obama == Right Wing. Obama = Bad Cop.
Left and right thinking does not follow Democrat and Republican party lines.
thank you Glenn, this reminded me to send a donation to the ACLU
"I can't come to another conclusion other than this is an example of the govt. inciting people against each other. If the left hates the right enough the left won't be looking at what their own leaders are doing."
Obama is NOT left. He certainly is NOT the leader, or a leader of the left. You only have to look at his statements, and the statements of people in his administration, whenever he or they talk about the left.
You are falling into the trap of equating Democrat with left.
It was 20 years ago today, when George H.W. Bush slammed the ACLU, I signed up as an official card-carrying member.
Herbert Wanker Bush. The name sez it all. Don't you miss Daddy? The day he puked on the MP of Japan was the day I gave up sushi.
Uncle Ho November 18th, 2009 1:35 pm -- I had exactly the same motivation as you did, except I didn't act upon it (having let my membership lapse in the 1970's). Thanks and congratulations for what you did. I finally signed up again a few months ago, still fuming from the idiotic remark of G.W.H. Bush.
Another fine article from Mr. Greenwald.
"Between (a) an organization that works tirelessly for basic due process and Constitutional liberties for everyone and (b) a political movement which demands their rejection, does it really take any effort to see which side is vigorously defending core American principles and which side is waging war on them? And given how due-process-free imprisonment is one of the most potent recruiting tools for Islamic extremists (as reported by David Rohde, Johann Hari, Gen. McChyrstal, and even the Pentagon's own 2004 Task Force) -- to say nothing of the endless aggressive wars cheered on by The Weekly Standard's play-acting warriors -- does it take any effort to see who Al Qaeda's "useful idiots" and stalwart allies truly are."
Effin' brilliant!! The problem with commenting on his articles is that he is usually so thorough and cuts through so much b.s. that one is left just cosigning.
Glenn Greenwald has consistently tipped his hat to Obama where credit for incremental change in a civil libertarian direction is merited, and blasted Obama, Eric Holder, and other White House insiders who perpetuate or mimic the policies of the Bush/Cheney era with a slightly leftist gloss. In today's particular offering however, Greenwald narrowly focuses the subject matter of his critique to the behavior and overblown McCarthyesque rhetoric of a renown right wing publication, The Weekly Standard.
So what happens in the commentary feedback here at CD?
Immediately, we are treated to another salvo of knee jerk Obama bashing, almost as if talking points were being circulated somewhere out there in the cybervoid mandating that for every progressive criticism targeting neocons, right wingers, or Bushies, there must be an instantaneous rejoinder that the two party electoral system is fatally corrupt to the core, all is hopeless, there's not a dime's worth of difference between Joe Biden and a Dick Cheney, and that Democrats despise the Constitution and its Bill of Rights ever bit as deeply and nefariously as the ideological Neanderthals running today's Republican Party do.
Enough already with instant injection of such moral equivalence clap trap. This recurrent phenomenon is enough to raise the troll alert level up to orange.
Glenn Greenwald makes a very good point here about the dangers inherent in influential news sources (well, the Standard is influential in some quarters) engaging in vicious, smear attacks upon a fine, bipartisan/nonpartisan organization such as the American Civil Liberties Union. [Disclosure: I've been an ACLU supporter for decades, and have occasionally done pro bono legal work on ACLU test cases]. Clearly, the Voices from Guantanamo video really stuck a nerve with the GWOT torture apologist crowd, in order to provoke such a shallow, rabidly jingoistic response from the spin meisters of the far right.
The video link is well worth a look. Also, the fact that The Weekly Standard openly embraces the reliability and credibility of Khalid Sheik Mohammed as an authority about what really happened on 9/11/01 is food for further thought. The John Adams Project (a joint effort of the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) deserve a pat on the back rather than another attack upon their patriotism.
Bill from Saginaw
Bravo. Well said, Bill. We need constructive criticism, not just blindly lashing out at the "enemy" du jour be it the "right-wingers," Bush, Cheney or Obama. Isn't that why we are stuck in Afghanistan? (Apart from the pipeline.)
Bill, I don't think the fact that this phenomenon recurs is a sign that there are trolls lurking under the CD bridge. I think it recurs because a good many people notice that the Republicans move us rightward by pushing their policies hard and that Democrats move us rightward by bending over, even when they are ostensibly the ones in power. My "knee-jerk" anti-Obama views (and I voted for the bastard, hoping against hope that my hope wasn't in vain) recur because I watched exactly the same song and dance under Clinton. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties in terms of substance. Rhetorically, there seems to be some difference on some issues some of the time, but when the rubber meets the road, the Dems somehow never move leftward. There's always one excuse or another as to why they don't, which eventually lead me to suspect a single power behind the two party facade. No talking points needed, just paying attention to a dynamic that has repeated itself like clockwork in the last two decades.
The neocons like The Weakly Swagger are the recuiting arm for Al Qaeda...since the fall of the USSR, they need a strong enemy to enure the profitability of the Military Industrial Complex, and thus their own profits.
Jill -
You really think Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and John Bolton share a common desire to dismantle the US Constitution and subvert the rule of law - that "they are all for it"?
Where is the moral and actual equivalence between the embrace of torture (rebranded as enhanced interrogation) as official US government policy by George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales - with Gitmo military commissions as its public showcase - compared with the unequivocal repudiation of torture (however labeled), the vow to shut down Guantanamo, and the recent announced decision to give the alleged 911 detainee conspirators a fair, public jury trial - decisions made by President Obama and/or his Attorney General Eric Holder?
The Bushies tried to create a legal black hole for "enemy combatants" where basic due process rights, and ordinary notions of civilized treatment of prisoners, respect for human rights, and fundamental fairness, simply did not apply. How is President Barack Obama doing the morally equivalent thing when he denounces that whole Bush/Cheney approach as inconsistent with the traditional values of our Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Hell yes, the left wing should turn on the right wing when the right wing rears up and attacks. But where is the proof that progressives "forget to look at what the Democratic Party leaders are doing" while the neocons' excesses are being condemned?
Barack Obama gets blasted by the left routinely (and often quite rightly so) for his triangulated shortcomings on this website, and in many other media sources. So were Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Lyndon Johnson in their day. The Democratic Congressional leadership right now is being bitterly attacked (and very rightly so, in my opinion) for wimping out and selling out on public option health care reform, and for failing to reassert meaningful regulatory control over Wall Street and curtail lavish executive compensation in a time of deep economic recession.
I just don't see where it is somewhere written that the left supposedly is somehow unable to walk and chew gum at the same time. If Glenn Greenwald spends today exposing some Republican hack writer for the Weekly Standard as a neofascist, don't be surprised if Glenn's not back to castigating the Obama White House team for hypocrisy or its bipartisan incrementalism tomorrow.
Progressives really are not obligated to take a whack at somebody in the center each and every time we take a whack at somebody on the far right, pretending they're all just alike, or at least close enough for fair and balanced rock 'n' roll.
Bill from Saginaw
Both Democrats and Republicans are trashing the Constitution. I voted for Chuck Baldwin to save the Constitution. Too bad the Constitution party wasn't what I thought it was. Neither the Republican nor Democratic party plans to save the Constitution. We need a third party such as the Green and Libertarian parties for this.
Hi Bill,
"You really think Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and John Bolton share a common desire to dismantle the US Constitution and subvert the rule of law - that 'they are all for it'?"
Actually, yes, their behavior proves this to be true, although there are differences regarding which aspects of the constitution and rule-of-law they are subverting. And as I've argued, one of the main reasons they've been successful to date are the defects in the constitution that allow for an almost unfettered executive and allows congress to avoid the duties it's supposed to undertake regardless, which is how impeachment is supposed to proceed. The eight named people are all reactionaries to some degree--not one is a democrat or an advocate for the commonfolk.
The people of the United States have allowed an evil monster to be constructed in their midst--A Corporate National Security State that desires to control the planet thru "Full-Spectrum Domination"--and that control certainly extends to the Empire's subjects. And it's not a matter of *having* to control the planet--rather, those running the show DESIRE to have that control. Thus, the US Empire is no different in its essence than Hitler's Germany or Tojo's Japan, except we select our own dictators. That desire also renders premeditated all the death and destruction rained down upon the Empire's helpless victims. The US Empire is quite similar to a serial killer, and for that reason alone it must be defeated and its leaders brought to the bar and tried for the massive crimes its committed over the past 6 decades--there's no statute of limitations on murder or war crimes. But something must also be done about the Propaganda and Indoctrination Systems, for they have played a major role in turning the US citizenry into "Good Germans." Then as with Germany and Japan after their WW2 defeats, the US Citizenry must undergo an extensive re-education program that details the horrors it allowed to take place.
The terror at home does our nation far more damage, far more persistently -- under the aegis of cross and flag, no less -- than any genuine enemy abroad could ever achieve.
yes, ClassAct, the terror at home, indeed...and genuine enemies abroad would seem to be far easier to describe than to locate, identify or defeat...
I find it difficult to engage in any discussions of post-9\11 action, as they all rely on conclusions about that day that have never been proven, and frequently contradict observation and evidence...
As usual, right on the mark Greenwald
what does Al Qaeda have to do with anything? are we playing 'argue a reason for war out of thin air into existence' again?
'radical "far leftist" doctrines such as "trials" and "due process"'
Yes they may be accurately referred to as radical far-left doctrines. Because the far-left is the only group that takes them seriously. In contrast, the pseudo-left regards such ideas as the rule of law and due process as secondary to their participation in the race to the bottom for power. Now that the pseudo-left is neck-deep in the glowing swamp of imperial power, what's going on? The neocon cabal enjoys QUITE a coalition today with the pseudo-left, against their scrawny little radical far-left opposition, and against the world.
I am coming to this conclusion more and more also.
time was I kept an openmindedness in that an american "liberal" or even "progressive" or someone that might TEND and be quite demonstrably "left" leaning...would indeed, when faced with issues that require clear choice, eventually or STILL keep leaning or accruing to what any logical and reasonable and , above all, HONEST and Truthful person would choose - which is:
being true to professing being a "liberal" or "left-leaning" or "progressive" when THAT person is confronted with a fact or an issue that shows american "values" as being CORRUPTIVE of the truth....he CHOOSES the TRUTH.... EVEN at the risk of his disowning his own "americanISM".
but recently - people that I come across with that seemingly CONSISTENTLY are ":left" or :"liberal" leaning - when confronted with something another thing that ALSO REQUIRES that , to BE TRUTHFUL as "left-leaning" , "Progressive", "liberal" , they have - HAVE - for logic and truthful reason dictates it, NOT their emotions or sentimentalities about "america" - HAVE to choose against their own notions of being "american LEFTIE" or simply "american" .
for example - i told a person that there was the boy that did not wish to stand to say the Pledge of Allegiance...and that he instead told the teacher "with all due respect...ma'am..go jump of a bridge".
the person - whom i perceived to be "leftie" or "progressive" or at least "liberal" and seemed to LIKE to show that he is ONE - simply reacted with disgust :
"he's a KID - a punk...this was SCHOOL where people are SUPPOSED to learn the pledge and say it".....
and there went out the door EVERYTHING that that person basically SEEMED to appear AS with all the previous proclamations or remarks that GAVE the impression of being "progressive, liberal" as if to differentiate from being a "bush GOP",etc...
and without further ado:
after suggesting a question :
"well - isn't the point that ANYONE, even a CHILD has the right to ask and if he disagrees upon some thoughtful consideration - refuses to say the pledge that THAT is the very reason america is supposed to be FREE?"
but the only response i could get was variations of
":he's a kid" and "THIS IS AMERICA - you do what is done in america"
ENTIRELY missing the IRONY of what that person just said:
that in america 'you do what is DONE' -- such as "kids are in school to learn and say the pledge of allegiance, EVERYONE does it" -- which in ITSELF closed the door to the VERY thing the "freedom" , "liberty" were proclaiming....
I encounter that more and more, in fact....it often, i find, only takes some sensitive enough subject that somehow gets the gander of a person up -- for the person to reveal himself or herself as
an "american liberal, progressive, leftie"
to an extent that is FAR TOO UNWILLING , when really challenged , to follow THROUGH the reasoning and logical of his or her own convictions because it will show that they are WRONG and UNTRUTHFUL, Contradictory, and Hypocritical.
and best of all - comes that CLASSIC response, which I amazingly enough, heard from the person recently that made the person sound INDEED LIKE a FAR RIGHT WINGER, rather than the APPARENT "liberal" ..:
"IF people don't like it HERE - if people don't like the way things are in america - LEAVE".
CLASSIC, CLASSIC, CLASSIC.
and so i learned another thing, or rather, CONFIRMED another of my suspicions or skepticisms about "liberals" in america or SUPPOSEDLY "freer thinkers" or supposedly more "independentminded" and "inclusive" people:
it is quite true that one can not always judge a book by its cover.
and that there are as MANY american "liberals" who surround themselves and dress themselves with "liberal" thought, "liberal" garb, "liberal" speech, "liberal" acts and choices even to a certain extent>
BUT UNDERNEATH are really just as AMERICAN CENTRIC and THEREFORE
FAR from being "liberal" or "Progressive" or, goodness "leftie".
and that they are just AS CONSERvATIVE AmnERICANS as the GOP openly far right wingers
when it comes to TRULY questioning many "americanISMS".
and that they are in fact just as prone in shutting down their own minds from REALLY , and TRULY "leftwing" challenges to their assumptions and convictions whcih they proclaim or display as "liberal" or "left-leaning".
in other words - as the fellow commentator above says - i think they are just as FAKE as all the others.
as fake as America pretending to be a democracy when it's really not, or pretending to be a free market even if it's really not, pretending to be "for justice and liberty for ALL" even if it's not....
and the ALL =INCLUSIVE, ALL CONCLUSIVE response is always
"THIS IS AMERICA!!!! if people don't like it here. LEAVE".
i heard that from a person that actually has passed off , seemingly , at least from my IMPRESSION, as "liberal".
and sometimes I wonder why that is - why is THAT kind of defensiveness so suddenly FIERCE in moments like that ?
is it perhaps because of people's own secret recognition of their own inconsistency and untruthfulness but can not admit it because they are already STEEPED in that dual behavior and pretense? "to LOOK and SOUND" like a liberal but REALLY are NOT when it comes down to the basics of truthfulness?
is it perhaps because of people's own recognition that their "liberal" america IS PART of the problem - such as in wars, exploitation , the financial mess, etc... BECAUSE of their very BEING american and that this recognition and admission is THREATENING to their very notion of being an "american" because this is ALL they really know and that spout as they might about being "open-minded" about other cultures, mores, habits, political thoughts , economic ways
they REALLY ARE NOT That openminded?
and so -- to STOP any further discussion that might REVEAL THIS even more - they INTONE the CLASSIC "this is MY countryl, this is AMERICA, if people don't LIKE it and just CRITICISE ..they can LEAVE"...
all THAT after saying , like a "liberal" that everyone "is entitled to criticize" - what irony.
i suspect that to a VERY large extent THIS is what the majority of so-called "liberals" in america REALLY ARE.
LIBERALS APPARENTLY
but ESSENTIALLY - FAR from it...in fact, nearly , if not AS, closeminded AS the farthest right winger Fascists themselves.
and their SHARED explanation or justification?"
"THIS IS AMERICA"
period. shut down all conversation.
I have been, and will continue to be, a financial contributor to the ACLU...what with the constitution lacking a mechanism by which the populace can directly remove public 'servants', this is as close as I can get to protecting my rights, as contained in the famous Bill Of...
go ahead, tell me voting cycles are my opportunity to remove faulty public 'servants'...go ahead...pretend like that works...
kogwanton - I agree with you on all fronts
It's good to know I'm not alone. Thanks.
The neoconfederate Coup-Laida, together with Al CIAduh: a ghastly embrace, indeed!
Poor Glen Greenwald,
having to put up with reading through
the WEEKLY omygodwhatdidtheyprintthistime STANDARD,
with a mind that clearly could be reading
most anything else.
A silver cross before you, Glen
And silver bullets in your vest,
You have more guts than I.
I wouldn't wish the STANDARD on a hamster.
good points! always remember that the us paid the northern alliance bounties to tell us whom we should imprison . only 10% of the human flotsam strewn across our worldwide torture chambers and black sites were actually taken into custody by us troops. yes, that is the same northern alliance who fought on the side of the russians against our mujahaden back in the 1980's. the folks at the weekly standard won't be happy until every last arabic person is infuriated with every last american. we have everthing to gain by being fair to the arab countries, as they have more people, more markets, and more resources than israel, our support for which has cost this country dearly. how 7 or 8 million people can wag the tail of 300 million is mystery to me! give the israelis credit for being smart as hell. obama won't stand up to benny n when benny tears up arab jerusalem. there can be no peace. israel invites war at every turn.
ACLU supports NAMBLA, that says it all. ACLU does hate America.
theowl November 18th, 2009 8:39 pm -- I suggest you do a little reading about what the ACLU is. You obviously have no idea.
What happened to your belief in free speech, and the right to offend people?
Typical right wing hypocrisy.
And no, the ACLU does not support NAMBLA. It supports NAMBLA's right to speech.
I think Bill from Saginaw scored a direct hit with his comment of November 18th, 2009 2:26 pm. First, I salute him for belonging to, and working on legal cases with, the ACLU. I also worked as an ACLU chapter leader member some 40 years ago, but got diverted into other things. Recently I rejoined when it became apparent that the ACLU has not only maintained its leadership role in defending constitutional rights, but has strengthened that position.
Bill says, and it bears repeating, "Greenwald narrowly focuses the subject matter of his critique to the behavior and overblown McCarthyesque rhetoric of a renowned right wing publication, The Weekly Standard. So what happens in the commentary feedback here at CD? Immediately, we are treated to another salvo of knee jerk Obama bashing, almost as if talking points were being circulated somewhere out there in the cybervoid mandating that for every progressive criticism targeting neocons, right wingers, or Bushies, there must be an instantaneous rejoinder that the two party electoral system is fatally corrupt to the core, all is hopeless, there's not a dime's worth of difference between Joe Biden and a Dick Cheney, and that Democrats despise the Constitution and its Bill of Rights ever bit as deeply and nefariously as the ideological Neanderthals running today's Republican Party do."
Obama and the Democrats are way, way far from perfect. But compared to "neocons, right wingers, or Bushies" – and now, "Tea Partyers" -- well, we ignore the differences at our peril.
Thanks, Glen. Good one.
When all the incurious bought into the "official" story of 9-11, and every kind of illegality against others who suddenly became suspects and were imprisoned without charge and indefinitely, and tortured in the cruelest of ways for days, weeks, years, and with GW declaring "that bunch of nothing more than old pieces of paper" - THE U.S. CONSTITUTION that he was charged with defending/swore to defend - didn't count anymore ... what was previously unacceptable in terms of moral beavior suddenly became acceptable. Start with the pre-written/before 9-11 Patriot Act, which was voted for overwhelmingly by Congress, most of whom hadn't read it, and that began our serious, serious ride to hell.
The Messages we have been bombarded with are: It's okay to lie, cheat, maim, kill, falsely imprison, be hysterical about Quakers carrying signs of protest, taser, arrest and imprison non-violent peaceful protestors, make war without Congressional debate or approval [Only Congress can declare war after debate, initiated by the President's request], diss The Constitution, cheat the public right and left financially with not even a slap on the wrist, ... and over-all sink to a moral level that is lower than the ooze coming from the bottom of a city's sewer pipes ...
9-11 is the key. Any dissent? REMEMBER 9-11. Israel uses that too to justify it's crimes against the Gazan Palestinians and Palestinians in general. REMEMBER THE HOLOCAUST!
So, in other words, in response to a terrible event that is a pre-planned CRIME, part of that CRIME is the IMMEDIATE JUSTIFICATION TO SUSPEND THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS and THE MORAL LAWS OF ALL RELIGIONS AND HUMANE PHILOSOPHIES.
BIG LEAP. NO ACCIDENT ... if the intentions are to create a ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT, AN EMPIRE, TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE EARTH AND ITS RESOURCES. [An Historically Familiar Story of Humankind/MANkind.]
Bill Kristol of THE AMERICAN STANDARD is pro-zionist and likely holds dual-citizenship with Israel. The crimes of the Zionist government are egregious, horrible, inhumane, disgusting and based on lying, denying, blaming ...
So, of course, an article like this appears in The American Standard or other similar publications and/or it is touted favorably on the MSM.
We have been in a massive, massive, massive cover-up for ten years-plus now.
9-11 was/is the basis for criminal behavior that passes for "patriotism" and Americanism and this behavior has broadened and flowed into every field and sector of our nation and into the world.
What's the message? It's okay to LIE, BLAME, BE UNJUST, BE SECRETIVE, MURDER, TORTURE, STARVE, IGNORE The People's needs as minor issues and make a profit on everything you can, including the misery of others, and control the globe militarily -- 700-plus U.S. military bases, and 7 new ones in Columbia to "monitor" Venzuela, Bolivia and other South American countries which are becoming much more independent.
So it's happened ... adopting and adapting to and accepting with apathetic attitude the below-the-sewer-pipes' morality.
Welcome to the U.S., our partner-in-crime Great Britain, and our cohort-in-crime Israel.
And more is coming.
The Right-Wing mind-sets are so rigid, lacking in sense, happily responsive to authoritarianism, especially the cries for revenge, that sure, this article may be laughable, but given the below-the-sewer-pipes' morality we are smeared with now, it gets serious consideration.
DENIAL is not just a river in Egypt, as someone said, a few years back.
To have grown up on rigid doctrine, one has to be doing a life with enormous amounts of denial. "The earth is 6,000 years old," says the preacher. "The Bible tells me so." ... and by the way don't watch PBS's specials that talk about evolution; don't read about it; stay away from that unGodly wickedness. Don't be sinful!"
Apply this to the bogus 9-11 Commission report, "the Bush Doctrine" [Sarah Palin had never heard of] that clearly violates The Constitution and all the other cute stuff that our government has been doing since September 11, 2001, the day of a scrupulously pre-planned event, that provided license to go for an Authoritarian Empire. The exposure of this CRIME is what so many of the cover-up shenanigans and the pressing-on-regardless attacks are about.
By our incuriousness, gullibility and our buying in to the fear and the fear-mongering without a question, we put ourselves in a state of DENIAL too, and we've helped in the creation of this whole mess.
But we're in it. And We the Public are being IMPOVERISHED to help it all along. NO ACCIDENT!
Glen Greenwald's articles spells it out again. Articles like this are all over the place. How many more do we have to read to really get it and fire up some determination to change it, stop it ... 1, 2 ... 35 ... 600 ... 1,000 ???
Below is a repost of something similar I wrote about an hour ago. It applies.
/cm
Coal Assault on Human Health
www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/18-8
[3 a.m. musings]
Kristen Welker-Hood of Physicians of Social Responsibility says:
"The time has come for our nation to establish a health-drive energy policy that replaces our dependence on coal with clean, safe alternatives," Hood said.
With all due respect, statements like these are more and more of the Alice in Wonderland variety.
When we end up with a Health Care Reform bill which makes health insurance even more unaffordable and fines people who can't afford it for not having it, and the Health Insurance Corporations are due to clean up mega-billions more, and
No matter what subject crucial to The People of the United States and of the World, and it has to do with war, torture, wanting to make more war against other countries, pro-corporation agricultural, energy, economic and monetary policies, climate change, human rights, etcetera, what I keep coming across is blatant lying and denying by those whose sole interests seem to be making profits or staying in office or controlling oil, gas, and other minerals and other people's land, no matter what sovereign nation "own" these items that are coveted or no matter what rights or claims other human beings have.
As far as the needs of The People, with very few exceptions among those the U.S. considers reasonable allies, the chief "bottle-washers" engage in LYING and DENYING and GIVING A PASS to the most egregious behavior against others that is so blatant, it takes the breath away. And we are very short on courageous, truth-tellers who are prepared to raise a ruckus and go for broke [literally].
Kristen Welker-Hood is undoubtedly very sincere, but what we really should be doing or must do for our safety and security in the near future is dismissed, shrugged away, not even considered because currently we are governed [robbed, cheated, ignored, exploited, imprisoned or killed] by the sickest bunch of inhumane, dehumanized humans that I think has ever been, at least in my lifetime. At least Hitler was incredibly vocal about what his plans were, but these people? slime oozing through the cracks in the ceiling and the walls.
It seems they are all stuck way back there at some kind of first-level reptilian brain response. "Ah, there is a big bug I want. Shiny, expressionless eyes focus like a laser. Nothing else enters their vision. The tongue whips out and grabs the bug and crunch, crunch, crunch. Then clump, clump, clump on to the next hunt for an even bigger bug, no matter trees are being knocked down, streams are stirred into mud, etcetera.
I'd rather be in a discussion with someone who is dead wrong, but passionate about his/her beliefs because both that person and I eventually can connect at a feeling level and then a conversational level at some point and begin to hear each other.
It is the cold, calculating ones that I am most afraid of. They do the dirtiest and ugliest of things without blinking an eye and then lie, make exuses, justify, and invariably blame someone else for why they do what they do.
They are unreachable because their hearts are just a muscle that beats in their chests. But the feelings we have come to associate with Heart are absent.
THEY DO NOT CARE past that Big Bug they want. And that is the scariest, most dangerous kind of monster that I can imagine, and they are currently all over the place.
So given who is interested in holding on to whatever holdings or business they are in [coal, oil, gold, natural gas, diamonds ...] that chances "...for our nation to establish a health-drive energy policy that replaces our dependence on coal with clean, safe alternatives." ... are pretty slim.
Idaho and Montana ... Oh, phosphate, a mother-lode ... well, let's cut down the forests and lop off some mountain tops and level some mountain ridges. MEGA-MONEY here!!!! There was a ban; suddenly it is lifted.
And who is going to stop them or help us? Obama? The Congress? The Media? The People? The Courts?
A cold, calculating insanity has taken hold. Old Reptilian- brain-stem level.
Everything has a cycle, however. Most often, much must necessarily be destroyed in order to gain new life and the ability to create anew.
Listen to Mozart's greatest works and you'll hear the grand story of the universe at its highest level. Exquisite beauty, profound order, but with intricate and extravagant creative threads woven together into a breathtaking, multi-leveled magnificence.
If you are looking for hope, there it is from a few centuries back.
/cm
P.S. BECOME A CARD-CARRYING MEMBER OF THE ACLU !!!! They sure keep right on truckin' for all of US ... year in and year out!
Thursday, Nov 19, 2009 05:20 PST
THE ADMINISTRATION GUTS ITS OWN ARGUMENT FOR 9/11 TRIALS
BY GLENN GREENWALD
(AP Photo\/Alex Brandon)
Attorney General Eric Holder testifies Wednesday on Capitol Hill before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department oversight.
(updated below - Update II)
"What I'm absolutely clear about is that I have complete confidence in the American people and our legal traditions and the prosecutors, the tough prosecutors from New York who specialize in terrorism" -- Barack Obama, yesterday.
"Holder said five other Guantanamo detainees would be tried by military tribunals. The five include Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri, who is accused of masterminding the 2000 attack on the USS Cole warship in Yemen; and Canadian Omar Khadr, accused of killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan" -- NPR, yesterday.
"'Administration officials say they expect that as many as 40 of the 215 detainees at Guantanamo will be tried in federal court or military commissions . . . . and about 75 more have been deemed too dangerous to release but cannot be prosecuted because of evidentiary issues and limits on the use of classified material' . . . If true, that means that there are 75 so-called 'Fifth Category' detainees who might be subject to indefinite detention without trial" -- The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, yesterday, quoting The Washington Post.
* * * * *
Can anyone reconcile Obama's homage to "our legal traditions" and his professed faith in jury trials in the New York federal courts with the reality of what his administration is doing: i.e., denying trials to a large number of detainees, either by putting them before military commissions or simply indefinitely imprisoning them without any process at all?
During his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Eric Holder struggled all day to justify his decision to put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial because he has no coherent principle to invoke. He can't possibly defend the sanctity of jury trials in our political system -- the most potent argument justifying what he did -- since he's the same person who is simultaneously denying trials to Guantanamo detainees by sending them to military commissions and even explicitly promising that some of them will be held without charges of any kind.
Once you endorse the notion that the Government has the right to imprison people not captured on any battlefield without giving them trials -- as the Obama administration is doing explicitly and implicitly -- what convincing rationale can anyone offer to justify giving Mohammed and other 9/11 defendants a real trial in New York? If you're taking the position that military commissions and even indefinite detention are perfectly legitimate tools to imprison people -- as Holder has done -- then what is the answer to the Right's objections that Mohammed himself belongs in a military commission? If the administration believes Omar Khadr belongs in a military commission, and if they believe others can be held indefinitely without any charges, why isn't that true of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? By denying jury trials to a large number of detainees, Obama officials have completely gutted their own case for why they did the right thing in giving Mohammed a trial in New York.
ARTICLE CONTINUED
========================================
Even worse, Holder was reduced to admitting -- even boasting -- that this concocted multi-tiered justice system (trials for some, commissions for others, indefinite detention for the rest) enables the Government to pick and choose what level of due process someone gets based on the Government's assessment as to where and how they're most likely to get a conviction:
Courts and commissions are both essential tools in our fight against terrorism . . . On the same day I sent these five defendants to federal court, I referred five others to be tried in military commissions. I am a prosecutor, and as a prosecutor, my top priority was simply to select the venue where the government will have the greatest opportunity to present the strongest case with the best law. . . . At the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is a federal court.
Does that remotely sound like a "justice system"? If you're accused of being a Terrorist, there's not one set procedure used to determine your guilt; instead, the Government has a roving bazaar of various processes which it, in its sole discretion, picks for you based on ensuring that it will win. Even worse, Holder repeatedly assured Senators that the administration would continue to imprison 9/11 defendants even in the very unlikely case that they were acquitted, citing what they previously suggested was their Orwellian authority of so-called "post-acquittal detention powers." Is there any better definition of a "show trial" than one in which the defendant has no chance of ever being released even if acquitted, because the Government will simply thereafter assert the power to hold him indefinitely without charges?
I understand that sending even a limited number of Terrorism suspects to federal court is politically difficult and controversial, as the last couple of days have demonstrated. But by refusing to embrace and defend the core principle of justice at stake here -- that a distinguishing feature of our political system is that we don't imprison or kill people without charging them with a crime and proving their guilt in a real court, and that military commissions and indefinite detention are un-American (which Democrats argued under Bush) -- the Obama administration has made it far more difficult for it to defend what it is doing, as well as for those who want to defend their decision to give trials to 9/11 defendants.
ARTICLE CONTINUED
=======================================
To see how that works, here is part of the exchange I had on MSNBC this week with George Pataki, while debating trials for 9/11 defendants:
MR. GREENWALD: If you look at how the British treated the people who did the London subway bombings, the Spanish who treated the people who did the Madrid subway bombings -- even India just put on trial the sole surviving terrorist who perpetrated the Mumbai massacre last year. Even Indonesia gave trials in their real cities to the people who blew up the nightclubs in Bali.
It's only the American conservatives who are feeding the terrorist agenda by saying that we're too scared to hold trials --
MR. RATIGAN: Hold on, Glenn.
MR. PATAKI: Can I respond to that, Dylan? Only the -- only the -- only the American conservatives? Then tell me why Obama and Holder are using military tribunals against those who blow up Americans in acts of war overseas? They're just picking these particular terrorists for trial in New York because they blew up civilians in New York. So what their logic is, "Kill thousands of civilians and you can get a civilian trial; kill one or two overseas, and we're going to use military tribunals."
That makes no sense.
For those wanting to defend the administration, what's the answer to that? The same thing happened when Rep. Nadler, as part of the same segment, tried to defend the Obama administration's decision to try the 9/11 defendants in New York:
REP. NADLER: I think that our tradition is that people accused of heinous crimes get trials, and they get trials in the area in which the crime is committed, which is right here. And I think it's exactly the right thing to do. . . .That's the way it ought to be, and we ought to show the world that we adhere to our traditions of justice and that these terrorists are not going to cause us to abandon the law.
MR. PATAKI: ... We are going to use military tribunals. They're saying they're perfectly fine for some terrorists, but these terrorists they're going to try here. What's the justification for that, Jerry?
REP. NADLER: Well, I -- well, I don't think there is any justification.
MR. PATAKI: I don't either.
The administration should have the courage of its convictions and defend jury trials as a linchpin of American justice, which would entail giving them to all Terrorism suspects not captured on any battlefield. But by refusing to do so -- by exhibiting the very cowardice of which Holder accused Republicans, i.e. denying Terrorism suspects a trial -- the administration has no cogent argument to make in its own defense. It's just another case of the administration wanting to bask in the rhetorical glory of "the rule of law" while simultaneously trampling on it for petty political convenience.
UPDATE: The blogger Patterico -- who, notably, is a prosectuor himself and thus inclined to be empathetic with prosecutorial goals -- nonetheless compiles additional evidence to criticize Holder's decision as follows:
You can see that what we have is an administration that is choosing where to try the detainees, not based on some principle or neutral protocol (as they claim), but based on where they can win. They’re rigging the game.
And if they lose, they won’t let him go anyway.
This is just further evidence that the KSM trial will be a show trial.
It's worth reading the arguments from a prosecutor about why the administration's conduct is such a breach of basic justice, even as they cynically wrap themselves in the rhetoric of the sanctity of jury trials and the rule of law.
UPDATE II: For a crystal clear refutation of the claim that it's normal to use military commissions for the crimes at issue here, see this comment from the always-enlightening Pow Wow, which is based on this equally enlightening interview by Marcy Wheeler of Lt. Col (and now-Law Professor) David Frakt, highlighting the numerous myths on which the case for military commissions is predicated.
No one has to defend the ACLU to me. It's an organization that I joined during the Vietnam years, then fell away from until 2000 when I realized that the need for it will never go away. There will always be someone, something, somewhere eagerly awaiting the opportunity to deprive us of our rights.
Remember when someone did a "Man in the Street" poll and asked people whether they supported things like habeas corpus, free speech, etc. without telling them these were the Bill of Rights?
And an alarming number of Americans felt these rights were too left-wing?
Just goes to show how horrifying far to the right (and facism) that our country has drifted.