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

[blaising]

Since when is "torture" something to be debated?

I guess "child molestation" deserves a debate too?

OK...if that makes you uncomfortable...we'll debate "murder" instead, maybe.

[Halminbar]

Future headline:

Obama Pardons Bush

[dwright]

NOT

[KofTX]

no chance...Obama doesn't move so carelessly.

[nivek]

"Cable Catnip" is a dismissive deflection of responsibility and a sidelong shot at what is being discussed, holding Bush accountable for war crimes. Clearly, if an honest assessment were possible from Mr. Todd, whether from 30,000 feet or from right under his nose, the acts of torture and their resulting deaths were criminal. To argue that a president tried to find legal cover for his crime excuses nothing. To suggest such inquires, investigations and prosecutions of political leaders be kept from the public eye, kept off the nightly news, as Mr. Todd recommends, tells me he is not only a poor correspondent, but a compromised one as well.

[dwright]

he is definitely getting some money from someone. He used to be somewhat interesting with his charts etc. Now, he is so far out I don't even feel like I am listening to the guy. I quit watching him or even any MSM in the last few months. His questions at press conferences are a joke and directed totally at SPIN>

[KofTX]

I agree...the so-called news channels are so full of pundits rather than reporters that the news cable news shows are becoming the new "reality" TV. Hell, they're even beating Dave and Conan in ratings now!

It's gonna get worse before it gets better...

[serena1313]

Todd's job, as a journalist, is to inform and educate the public, not politicize the issue. His argument against investigations because they would be political fodder, "catnip," for cable and a distraction is disingenuous, hypocritical and dangerous. And likewise for other critics, who claim to be "tough on crime," are also ignoring the overwhelming credible evidence that warrant investigations.

What they are advocating is the dangerous notion that people in power should be allowed to break the law without fear of being prosecuted or held accountable translated means people in power ought to be able to live by a different set of rules.

To say prosecutions would inflame the world is disingenuous -- the world already knows, but is waiting to see what, if anything, the US will do about it.

Whether it is laziness or political expediency, journalists, like Todd, who refuse to consider muchless look at the evidence on its merits cannot and should not be trusted to educate the public in any meaningful way. The same applies to those claiming to be tough on crime. Apparently they think their willful blindness will go unnoticed.

While hypocrisy abounds, danger lurks in the shadows.

Those who break the law must be held accountable, arguments to the contrary, given the mounting evidence, are simply not credible.

Todd could defuse the politics, but chose not to renders his argument moot.

[ibwilliamsi]

It's a shame that this is the man who replaced Tim Russert.

[december30]

Dqavid Gregory replaced Tim Russert. He is as worse as Chuck Todd though.

[WorkingmansPaine]

Todd says he is afraid we will lose our credibility in the world if this goes to trial but he acts as if the world does not know about the torture already ! WTF?

His biggest argument seems to be that it would be bad for America.

Sounds to me like it might be bad for some of his Washington buddies.

Sounds to me like someone is trying to protect his own ass.

[WorkingmansPaine]

f ck chuck

[WorkingmansPaine]

F*ck Chuck

[LiveLifeNow]

What amazes me his Chuck Todd thinks seems to think the USA has any credibility at all on the torture issue.

[Yermammy]

Glenn put the intellectual whoopass on Todd. Will he learn anything from his chastisement? We can only hope, but it's safer to listen to the corporations who actually own this country.

[tel8034]

Chuck Todd can't decide whether or not to be a pundit, a journalist, an opinion poll analyst, or a great debator.

As a pundit he is WRONG on his analysis and predictions time and time again.

During the campaign he tried to set himself up as the expert in analyzing opinion polls, then Nate Silver came along and trounced him from every side, and Nate became the king of opinion poll analysts.

So Chuck ended up at the White House press room, and again he wants to be seen as being smater than anyone working in the White House (including the President), to be seen as being smarter and more informed on the inner workings of the congressional hill, and to been seen as the smartest and most connected among his colleagues .................. Again he fails on that front.

Now he wants to be the great debator? .................. Seems as if he fails at that as well.

Chuck Todd needs to mark a single box, and perfect that role, because he definately is NOT a Jack of All Trades.

[kempis]

Wow...Stupid slippery slope argument, Chuck.

And if we're sliding down 'em, we might consider the other extreme: do we want to assume perpetual immunity for all administrations so that we can look like a mature "democracy"?

If Todd wants us to set an example of a mature republic, he might consider this: was the Bush Administration the sort of executive administraiton that a mature Republic has?

[realpolitic]

Chuck Todd shows his naivety here and was destroyed in this argument. He has clearly bought into right-wing talking points that we are acting like a third world junta if we put the former administration on trial. We are much more like a third world junta if we ignore the lawbreaking because it is not convenient to address it. Besides if another country waterboarded our citizens, would it be enough if they said they have had an election and want to move on? These torture allegations are some of the most serious examples of lawbreaking in our history. We do not excuse it becaue a sycophantic lawyer gave a permission slip based on flimsy legal reasoning. What will Todd say when another conservative administation comes to town and implements the same polciies?

[rich misty]

http://www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

Write. FDR once said: "You have to make me do it"

[Bademus]

Let Cheney take the fall.