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

[editor]

Yes Mr. Todd; prosecuting war criminals can indeed be "inconvenient".

[kindGSL]

Inconvenient if you have been involved like he has.

It is getting personal with all of these guys, their denials are wearing through.

[Mikeeee]

CT argued his misguided points as well as he's capable, so I'll be kind and only say he is a eunuch.

[madisonhack]

I have a couple of words for Chuck Todd.

Nuremberg.

Milosevic.

[Cookie100]

Todd is paid by GENERAL ELECTRIC, what'd you all expect?

[Cookie100]

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2009/04/13/090413ta_talk_mayer

at least someone is doing something

[rich misty]

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

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

[periscope]

The question shouldn't be "Is it good for America's reputation to put the previous administration on trial for serious crimes?" The question should be, "What will this or some future administration do, knowing that the Bush administration violated the Geneva Conventions (U.S. law by treaty), the U.S. Constitution (4th amendment and others), as well as lying to the Congress to hide unwarranted CIA programs?"
If we give the Bush-Cheney gang a pass on their crimes, we do so at our own considerable peril.

[StillAmused]

"is it good for our reputation around the world if we're essentially putting on trial the previous administration?"

Yeah, Chuckie... it's VERY good for our reputation. Better than a reputation as a behemoth that's prone to veer out of control, every time some m/oron finds his way into the pilot house, and launch invasions and occupations that cost hundreds of thousands of lives, then just "move on".

Liked you a lot more when you just did numbers. Where'd the sudden political gravitas come from? A cereal box.

[StillAmused]

"?"

[AGarcia]

"Liked you a lot more when you just did numbers. Where'd the sudden political gravitas come from?"

Actually, I think the MSM is now totally devoted to "politics" by the numbers. Have you noticed how much they love opinion polls? They actually believe they are taking the "pulse" of America. It's the shallowest form of journalism and Chuckie is the posterboy. Lol, I loved the cereal box part!

[timberdoodle]

The outside world currently sees a host of crimes that were committed by tyrants and the country condoning those crimes in the name of political expediency.

It has to be remembered all the other countries around the world know more about the crimes that were committed against humanity than most people in America as they get the real news unlike most areas of the United States.

In addition a domestic problem is created by virtue of doing nothing about these crimes. This means any future American Administration can commit crimes both Internationally and Internally without fear of being held accountable. This latter point may be even more damaging to Americans than world wide opinion and retaliation.

[thebigmouth]

We have allowed our moral standing to be eroded in the world by a couple paranoid people. One spent his last eight years in a bunker in such fear for his own safety. The other using cowboy talk to let us know how macho he was, and his stupidity probably resulted in more deaths of our troops than releasing photos or memos ever could. Neither was ever going to put their life on the line as their histories have shown. I’ll lead but you go first!

Holder has a responsibility of getting to the truth and exposing lawbreakers. Obama is a gifted speaker, he can explain to the world what took place in our government over the past eight years and reset our moral standing in the world. But without the public airing of the facts, it reinforces the abuse of power of the last eight years. He owes it to the American people more than anyone else.

As for Todd, what if Obama really wants this all to be exposed but wants it to look like the public forced him? What if Obama and Holder had this understanding from the very beginning of his election, to keep this from looking political? He is a poker player it’s time call his bluff… maybe Todd should try some real journalism?

[thebigmouth]

I support using torture for myself and would use it if I thought it would save my life or my love ones. But I don’t want my government supporting my use of torture or theirs.

If I was caught using or if a death resulted in my use of torture, I would expect to go before a court of my peers and be judged and so should Bush. Like murder you can’t stop someone from going there, if they believe there are good reasons.

I have not seen one ticking time bomb and I doubt that I would ever face such a situation. And when we allow someone to be water tortured 183 times and deaths in some cases that goes beyond the ticking time bomb it becomes sadistic in it’s use.

[sarahwaters]

I am nor was I ever impressed with Chuck Todd. Why President Obama calls on him at his press conferences is beyond me. The question(s) is usually stupid and the President always seems to tactfully work around his stupid, insignificant questions. Stop calling on him and call on real reporters.

[peacebro]

I like CT he did his homework on the elections but he is way too "inside the beltway" and wrong on his point here.

[dillydawg]

He's a statistical numbers guy turn 'so called' journalist.

[on2them]

If we don't condemn and hold a trial for those that broke the law, it shows the world we are no better than theocracies or dictatorships.

[vonPinto]

Venezuela will turn out to be a beneficiary of our ineptitude if we fail to hold folks accountable for the crimes they committed in our names just because we do not want to upset the apple cart/norm......just like CT is arguing that it will be setting a "bad precedent" if a new administration puts the out-going one on trial for the crimes they committed while in office.

CT should be banished to Zimbabwe. May be, his argument will hold some water down there. Our democracy should not be afraid to correct itself just because a few egos will be hurt.

I am beginning to think that CT is a GWB plant and apologist.

[113]

classic example of what is wrong with the mainstream media; it's about the "philosophy" they all subscribe too....this is why journalism (at least mainstream journalism) is all but dead.

this is also a classic example of why Glenn Greenwald is one of the clearest, and best journalist and thinkers out there at the moment...He is a tremendous asset in an industry that has lost it's way.

[traveler501]

I really don't see the "how will it look to the world" argument at all. The world already knows we did it...and the world knows who pushed hard for the Nuremburg trials. We have no choice at all except to admit the worst and punish though who broke the law. There is no reality / idealism conflict here...there is only integrity or hypocrisy.

[CompliantMedia]

In some way this was a old fashioned debate between a purist (Greenwald) and a realist (Todd).

I do think Todd made some good points and I commend him for remaining so calm in the face of Greenwald's persistant criticism. Although I must say I am more sympathetic to Greenwald's point of view.

I do feel that Obama knows that this investigation will ultimately lead to the doorstep of the White House (i.e., Bush) and he doesn't want to go there.

It reminds of how difficult it is to find a doctor to testify against another doctor in a malpractice case.

What I do not agree with is Mika and Buchanan suggesting the motive for an investigation is to distract from the problems Obama faces right now. This is pure fiction and echo's the view of the pundits over at Fox News.

[rich misty]

When Clinton was in office they obstructed and howled every time he tried get bills to fight terrorism. They said he was distracting Americans from their Monica scandal.

[AGarcia]

Chuck Todd is trying desperately to seem like he's presenting some deep philosophical "is-ought" problem or desperately looking for an a priori condition where every stance couldn't be rationalized (like Clinton's definiton of "is"). He isn't and he's not deep at all. In reality, he's taken the perspective of infinite shallowness. This suits the current state of the mainstream media fine (like Chris Matthews shouting that politics is "FUN!"). They view politics as theater, separate from the day to day reality that the rest of us are experiencing. This is willful ignorance that some issues aren't actually "debatable" just because they are debated. They prefer to reject the notion of a correct and incorrect position because they know they can continue to play a zero-sum game to our great annoyance and the masses' fascination. I really enjoyed listening to this post, Glen G was great... hope more people hear it. Thanks Jason...

[peacebro]

I agree, It was one of the better interviews I have heard. Greenwald is very clear and holds very true to his comprehensive reasoning.