Chuck Todd And Glenn Greenwald Debate Torture And The Media

I've been remiss in not following up on the podcast discussion that Salon's Glenn Greenwald and MSNBC's Chuck Todd gave yesterday, that I previewed on these pages. I got a lot of emails from people who found the discussion to be really lively and valuable. I've only read the transcript myself, but I was really impressed at how engrossing and candid it was. Both men deserve big-time kudos for making this happen, and getting it done so quickly.

If you haven't listened to it by now, you can catch the podcast here, or peep the transcript by clicking here.

Folks know where I stand on the issue of torture and accountability -- including Glenn and Chuck-- so I'm not going to get into a prosecution of either argument. But I'll pull one part out:

GG: Let me ask you about that, then. If a president can find, as a president always will be able to find, some low-level functionary in the Justice Department -- a John Yoo -- to write a memo authorizing whatever it is the president wants to do, and to say that it's legal, then you think the president ought to be immune from prosecution whenever he breaks the law, as long as he has a permission slip from the Justice Department? I mean, that's the argument that's being made. Don't you think that's extremely dangerous?

CT: That could be dangerous, but let me tell you this: Is it healthy for our reputation around the world - and this I think is that we have TO do what other countries do more often than not, so-called democracies that struggle with their democracy, and sit there and always PUT the previous administration on trial - you don't think that we start having retributions on this going forward?

Look, I am no way excusing torture. I'm not excusing torture, and I bristle at the attack when it comes on this specific issue. But I think the political reality in this, and, I understand where you're coming from, you're just saying, just because something's politically tough doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. That's, I don't disagree with you from 30,000 feet. And that is an idealistic view of this thing. Then you have the realistic view of how this town works, and what would happen, and is it good for our reputation around the world if we're essentially putting on trial the previous administration? We would look at another country doing that, and say, geez, boy, this is--

GG: So what do you think happens - I think what has destroyed our reputation is announcing to the world that we tolerate torture, and telling the world we don't --

CT: We have elections, we also had an election where this was an issue. A new president, who came in there, and has said, we're not going to torture, we're going to do this, and we're going to do this--

GG: What do you think should happen when presidents--

CT: Is that not enough? Isn't that enough?

GG: When, generally, if I go out and rob a bank tomorrow, what happens to me is not that I lose an election. What happens is to me is that I go to prison.

All I can say is that if John Yoo wants to do me a solid, it'd be really cool of him to whip up some "Jason Is Allowed To Knock Over One Or Two Jewelry Stores" memos.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[RamonBackwards]

(cont.)

Still, the above universal truth underlies every conversation that people have on this topic, and it generally goes unsaid. That's why it's important that we decide on one direction or the other with the Constitution. Either it matters, or it doesn't. And that must apply in all situations, or it can't be expected to apply in any.

As a Ron Paul supporter, my position is clear. But based on the fact that he received only 10% of the primary vote in his own party, and the fact that exactly NONE of the other candidates made the Constitution a central focus of their campaign, we should all accept the very obvious conclusion: we don't really care about the Constitution, but we like having it there in case things get out of control. (is a colon the right punctuation there?)

Perhaps that's enough. Perhaps that's all it was ever designed to be. But you can be sure that an attitude like that will GUARANTEE that another manifestation of Bush's anti-Constitutional presidency will come around, and we'll again be dumbfounded as to how it ever got to that point.

P.S. Chuck Todd wanted Ron Paul excluded from the Republican primary debates because he was causing a "distraction" or something like that. Chuck Todd is what you call an establishment tool.

[RamonBackwards]

The problem is that there are some universal truths.

One universal truth is that, push come to shove, you'll support torturing somebody at a given point. That point might be one bomb, it might be 100, but eventually, if enough of your family or friends die, you'll support torturing someone.

Bush was a TOTAL FAILURE because he eagerly jumped at the chance to use a tragedy as an excuse to do the things that we all would support under certain circumstances (and that the people around him had grown comfortable doing a long, long time ago), circumvented and undermined the (very controllable as demonstrated with the Iraq war) democratic process of deciding when and where we, as a country, are ready to take such actions, and damaged our credibility by going too far in pretty much every imaginable sense, as is generally the result with the type of personality who takes such an underhanded approach.

Bushco was a horrible nightmare we'll hopefully never have to repeat.

That said, by ignoring or minimizing the importance of the Constitution for so long, we made his behavior more or less inevitable. By constantly being willing to look the other way, we invited those who would thrive in such a literally lawless environment. Yes, George W. Bush's actions are primarily our own fault.

[Graywolf48]

Crimes were committed, of this there can be little doubt. These crimes were committed by OUR government, in OUR name and need to be redressed. Unfortunately, it is always the victor, the most powerful, who writes history. We are attempting to write that history now, or more accurately, rewrite it to accommodate and justify our wicked ends. We are working to justify doing what was once considered immoral and unacceptable by a modern, civilized society. We said so at Nuremberg. And again at the war crimes trials in Tokyo. Todd, as are the vast majority of "journalists", are nothing more than stenographers and shills for the military/industrial complex. Greenwald exposed Todd and his ilk in his tribute to Walter Cronkite the other day. I recommend reading it, it's a good argument. To quote Stefen Zweig: "We are all criminals if we remain silent." I, for one, will not be silent.

[lokipuck]

One by one these corporate jakeasses expose themselves.

[iburl]

Chuck's thinks that the right thing is 30,000 feet high.
That's the problem right there.
Doing the right thing is hard and distracting and that we have to be "realistic" about allowing inhuman degradation, torture, murder, and complete negation of all human rights.

Chuck wants Congress and the Justice Department to take the lead... so... you can criticize them for not being "realistic"? Guess who sets up what is realistic? Reporters who hold influence over the public echo chamber.

All Obama does by continuing all the crimes of the Bush Administration is prove to the world that we are not a nation of laws. All Chuck Todd does is give him cover.

[Thermodynamics]

Yoo is under fire from Padilla.

http://freedetainees.org/6218

Yoo is appealing the ruling of the federal district court denying his motion to dismiss Padilla’s case.

We should watch this case. Is a note form a lawyer enough to get you off the hook? Does writing the note make the lawyer responsible for damages? Will he have to pay $$$$$$ in damages to Padilla?

[buddhistMonkey]

Chuck Todd lost the debate before it even started. Glenn Greenwald is a partisan blogger, while Todd claims to be an impartial reporter covering the White House. Todd is on the wrong side of the torture debate, but worse for him, he's taken a position on a matter of national security for which he can never again claim to be impartial. Chuck Todd sold what little reputation he had as a journalist for the opportunity to defend torture, and on the same day that Walter Cronkite died, too.

[marleysghost]

Using torture has been against the law here for a long time. It is not a cultural artifact that can be resurrected just because a government lawyer says it is ok. If we excuse this then all that we learned about the Soviet Union and it's use of these tactics needs to be reversed. If it is ok for our government to excuse torture we cannot claim that we are anything other than the governments we have called on this issue over the past 100 or so years. Why, we may as well just go ahead and say we can use poison gas in warfare because the president says it's ok. The acts were criminal and we know it. But I know we would rather talk about how awful it was instead of seeking remedy through the law and the courts because we, the US as a whole, were complicit. It is a shame we are so cowardly.

[jbs902]

Watching Chuck Todd attempt at being taken seriously as a reporter is torture enough.

[wmholt]

At least we can watch Chuck Todd and know what his real loyalties are. Before, there could have been some question.

[theclosetconservative2]

Reading this about Chuck Todd reminds me of a line John Travolta had in Swordfish about "misdirect­ion." Attempt to put the GOP on trial for enhanced interrogation techniques redefined as torture; a charge that will prove to be utterly frivolous. The Democrats know that but their wish is to "misdirect" people's attention from the economic and national defense damage that President Obama is doing to this country. http://theclosetconservative.com

[wmholt]

It's about crime and accountability. We are a nation of laws, not men, even if they are GOP men.

[n4m]

I hope you realize you just cited a movie in which a man (Travolta) uses terrorism against the very people he claims he claims he protects from terrorism.

[RoloTomassi]

Pure BS; your argument is one of purely circumstantial convenience. It has no relation to the law, and soley based on political posturing. Laws were broken and people--regardless of political affiliation--should be prosecuted. Obfuscation and obstruction by both parties [but certainly moreso by the GOP] have proven this point.

[n4m]

Since when is "My lawyer said it was okay" a valid legal defense?

[Osusuki]

Since never. In fact, that is the point where your lawyer becomes your co-conspirator.

[n4m]

Exactly!

[grumbles]

Watch out Chuck! Your GOP slip is showing...­..........­.....

[roberto8ag]

"Watch out Chuck! Your GOP slip is showing...­" and Obama's isn't?

[KofTX]

seriously?

[nolalily]

I used to like Chuck Todd until I began listening to him.

[dwright]

It is torture for me to have to read these comments by Chuck Fodder. He is dimwitted at best and dangerous at worst.

I guess it is okay for any of us to break the law based on his logic.