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

[Tommi2]

Maddening!
Glenn Greenwald is debating with the very entity that "wink-winked" through all the crimes of Cheney-Bush.

Todd and all his cronies live in a bubble of sold-out politico's who think it's all a game or sport.
But the most maddening aspect of it all is that if it was a Democratic administration that pulled this crap these shills would have roasted, fried, and raked them over the coals.

And it's really all because Democratic leaders like Pelosi, Reid, and even Obama have no spine when it comes to this "accountability" of the last eight years.
I hope Eric Holder will step up but it's like their all playing stooopid like it never happened.

[XrisB72]

Basically we do not have a functioning democracy if Chuck Todd's view is the way things work in DC.

[kindGSL]

It does explain a few things.

[vgirl1]

PS:

It's the media's inability to show enough guts to challenge GW Bush in the first place that let Bush and Cheney take our country into an ill gotten and ill conceived war.

If the media would stand up for what is right, it would be easier for the country to face the facts and deal with the issues that need to be addressed for our sake now and in the future. The media's willingness to help us avoid our sins makes us no better than the countries we have so decried in the past for committing war crimes.

[vgirl1]

Chuck Todd clearly lacks the principles of a Walter Cronkite.

As a journalist he should first not take sides on this issue. However, if he does take sides as he has done, one would hope he would take one on the side of right and not on the side of political expediency for the country or himself.

That is all I have to say.

[cliffhammond]

...there's a place for him at Fox.

[Tommygun264]

Chuck Todd is good at statistics, he is generally like-able and has the potential to become a good broadcast political journalist. However, like so many other talented young hopefuls, Mr. Todd lacks the education and practical experience necessary to give him the self-confidence he needs to take a principled stand and express his own independent opinions. He is so eager to win acceptance from those he looks to as his superiors simply because they have been at the job longer that he absorbs what he perceives as the "common wisdom" of those around him like so much intellectual tofu and allows himself to be carried along by the popular opinion express off-camera by his more conservative colleagues within the press corps. He mistakes parroting what other reporters have the good sense not to say on camera because they know their personal opinions are to the right of the political mainstream with being bold and independent. He needs to round out his natural talent with statistics and comfort before the camera with a real education in journalism and journalistic ethics, to be mentored by broadcast journalists who have gained their position through hard work and study; not to pal around with empty-headed barbie and ken dolls who don't even think about the words they read of the teleprompter. Chuck Todd has a lot of potential, but sadly it appears to be going to waste as he is being fast-tracked for a hosting position too soon.

[Cyclone]

Well said. He really needs to stay away from Morning Joe.

[JimMichie]

And let's not forget that General Electric's NBC "News" installed Chuck Todd as "Chief White House Correspondent." This sadly is what broadcast news has come to. Please read his response to Glen Greenwald and note that it is a collection of poorly constructed fragmented sentences that really make no sense at all. Sad, very, very sad.

[Poboy]

My thoughts exactly.

Unfortunately, my earlier post got scrubbed.

He is totally UNQUALIFIED for his position.

[hangdogit]

I've always admired Chuck Todd's political insights and deep knowlege of the way things really work. And he is right that prosecutions would be difficult.

But it is not enough for a president to come into office and put a stop to tortures. In our democracy, no one is above the law -- and that applies to members and leaders of the previous administration when clear evidence of a crime is apparent as in the case of Cheney bragging about how torture was safe, effective and legal. It is a War Crime -- the prosecution of which is not optional.

He mentioned our reputation Our reputation will be enhanced throughout the world -- and justice will be done -- by holding the torturers accountable -- not by sweeping the whole ugly situation under the rug.

[kindGSL]

Better than that, if we demonstrate how to do it right, we will be setting a positive example for the rule of law that rest of the world would be able to follow.

If we don't demonstrate how well our system actually works, no amount of telling people about it is going to convince them.

It is time for us to put our money where our mouth is or 'freedom' as a military excuse for empire loses ALL of it's credibility.

[kankankan]

Deep political insights? What is that crap I read above?

Bet you could answer this question: How do we uphold our democratic traditions that no one is above the law, while still avoiding serial political witch hunts every time a new party takes power?

How 'bout this: set some rules about the evidence needed to investigate previous admininstration, and implement an accepted form of independent prosecutors (ala Patrick Fitzgeerald types, centrist judges etc..), and give them the power of Fed prosecuters If it turns out no crimes were committed, pay the legal fees of the poor, persecuted politicians and move on...This would be fair to accused parties, but also would deter future admins from doing any illegal acts under the cover of presidential power, knowing that a time will come where they will be judged under the law of the land..

Todd says, "if you look at from 30,000 ft" ....as if DAs around the US would think of themselves as ivory tower idealist for prosecuting a former politician for crimes...just plain old law and order and due process, not a 30,000 ft activity

[EndTheEcho]

Easy way to solve the over flowing jails in this country. Have Chuck Todd become the prosecutor.

Glenn gets a bit obsessive on this topic, but when he has to put up with the apologists in the corporate media all the time, I understand why he must do this.

[Exexecution]

Yeah, someone needs to do it. And for his efforts I am grateful.

[kindGSL]

Let's ask Chuck Todd what he thinks of legalizing marijuana.

[kankankan]

Very funny endtheecho, like it.

Not very often you see a white man on MSM saying our justice system is too strict, overreaching,and should lighten up, mainly so we make a better impression on foreign countries. Even more surprising to see a white man to ask for leniency, while more or less agreeing a crime was committed and that the crime, torture, is indefenseable. But hey, we don't want to look bad to other countries and get carrried away with this justice thing. That would be so embarrassing.

Can't find where Todd previously said we should not jail so many people because our sky-high incaceration rates made us look bad to other countries.

[TeeLolly]

More and more, in this country, if you're rich, powerful, or politically connected, you can do all the crimes you want without having to do the time. Yes, we have our scapegoats, and if you happen to be one of that small group (Madoff comes to mind), you lose. But for the vast majority in that upper class, including most of the Wall Street thugs who continue to take what they don't deserve, health insurance execs raking in millions while policyholders who are denied the coverage they paid for also pay for the execs' crimes with their health or their lives, there are no consequences for immoral, unethical and/or criminal conduct, which serves as no deterrent for ever-increasing levels of greed, immorality and even criminality. Meanwhile, ordinary guys who may steal a few hundred bucks to pay the rent or keep the car running in order to get to work pay disproportionately with long sentences that taxpayers must subsidize. This does not make for a healthy or sustainable society.

[doneflyin]

Co-sign!

[WoodyCPM]

That's correct. A few more years of this and the social contract that only barely holds this nation together anyway will be ripped and torn into so many pieces that the nation may be beyond repair. Either that or a major all out war will be declared and everyone will get back in line.

[markdavida]

Not to sound partisan here, because I voted for Nader (like it or not) - but I think the Republican party would jump at the chance if the tables were turned and it was a Dem in the hot seat. Look how they freaked out about Bill Clinton's affair. Clinton did lie, but they really went after him. George and Dick did nothing but lie to the public. And we are going to let them walk away? What a sham. All administrations lie and break the law, that is why they don't want to set the example here. They know they are the next in line for the DOJ. It seems simple, but if they don't break the law they won't have any problems with criminal investigations.

[hyjanks]

Well, Todd, I guess I'll go out and rape and pillage, steal stuff, push old ladies out in front of traffic and toss acid in the face of Miss World. If I get caught and go to trial, I will definitely have my lawyer subpoena you as a character witness. You can tell the judge that just because I committed all these crimes, they should be dismissed because . . . because . . . because . . .

[StaggerLee]

Because I had my lawyer write a memo?

[Mike4Obama]

Cheney totally misused the CIA.

[DMSmith]

We must prosecute the crimes. We must also not assume that this means each administration will prosecute the previous one. These are not political charges. They are legal charges. The idea is to show by action and consequence that breaking of the law by our leaders is NOT tolerated? Should less be our intent and goal?
If we truly believe in our laws and our constitution, we have no choice.
Laws were broken.

[elkabong]

Chuck Todd said in the discussion: "If you could guarantee me that [the investigation and prosecution of Bush Administration for committing the crimes of authorizing and committing torture] wouldn't end up on TV as a political food fight [then I'd be OK with it]"

Jesus, Chuck, it's YOU and your colleagues who PUT IT ON TV AS A POLITICAL FOOD FIGHT!!!

How can we not be screwed when we've got people like Chuck Todd in charge of the Fourth Estate?

[WoodyCPM]

Lord have mercy on us.

[knowBuddhaU]

Not black and white, he says?

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 [sic] do what other countries do more often than not, so-called democracies that struggle with their democracy, and sit there and always PUT [sic] the previous administration on trial - you don't think that we start having retributions on this going forward? http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/07/16/todd/index.html

Is he holding out the carrot of impunity while threatening us with retribution? "Ooh, be careful, Obamaniacs: what will the neighbors think if we enforce equal justice before the law even upon our most powerful public servants? Don't you want Obama to get away with murder, too?"

Is that what he's saying?

[kindGSL]

I keep wondering if some of his speculations (and yes, he does a lot of that) are warnings; messages from the CIA or Family or whoever is pulling his strings. I don't believe we know who that is.

Is Chuck a secret messenger?

It definitely sounds like he is threatening us from time to time to me.

I imagine 'the message' coming from ? to Rham to Chuck to the TV, where it becomes inarguable, and then Obama is stuck with it as popular policy.

I don't know that there is a cycle that works like that, it just seems to look like it it does from time to time.