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

[suntzu]

Todd is putting up a straw man and knocking the straw man down. He says if we go after Bush, then the next administration is going to go after Obama for HIS crimes. He is already presuming that Obama is going to commit prosecutable crimes.
This is similar to saying, well if we prosecute a man for robbing a bank, then we have prosecute the NEXT bank robber, and oh my, isn't that going to be a mess. The answer is YES, you prosecute when a crime is committed, whether the miscreant has left office or not, so long as there is no statute of limitations.
The other thing is there is a difference between prosecuting Bush for his crimes, and investigating Bush for his crimes. The job of prosecution belongs to the president, the job of investigating belongs to congress. Each branch has its job to do. They are not addressing that distinction here. Even if Obama does not prosecute Bush, Congress should investigate. It is the law.

[sviolette]

The job of prosecution belongs to the justice dept not the president.

[Exexecution]

True technically, but it's no secret the AG does the President's bidding. See Mukasey/Gonzo. I don't expect that Holder proceeds with anything of this magnitude without the blessing of the President, who after all, wants to look forward so vigorously that he is prepared to hold detainees for possible future crimes, even if found not guilty in a court of law.

[hrned]

Obama has committed prosecutable crimes - he hasn't followed through on US treaty commitments to prosecute torturers.

[dc2nm]

Yet (I'm not giving up all hope...we'll see what happens after the healthcare fight is over).

[Exexecution]

He will have if he does not follow through with his obligation to uphold the law and international treaties to which the US is signatory.

[mathme]

and oyu know what? If O does something illegal or prosecutable then someome should go after him. Why are we worried about people being put on trial for crimes? They SHOUDL be afraid of that. This isn't a frivolous charge here... it's US and international law.

[NyPrincess]

Chuck Todd should be embarrassed! Glenn Greenwald ate him for lunch. I used to watch Chuck when he was on C-SPAN. I had such high hopes for him. Sigh...

[larce1948]

Chuck speaks of "political reality" "Then you have the realistic view of how this town works". He essentially admits that Capitol Hill is rotten with cowardice and corruption. The place reeks of hypocricy and is rife with corporate whores. Chuck is now one of them and so must defend them.

[northstar11]

if one administration does not hold the other accountable for abiding by the time worn laws of the land

the whole democracy thing disintegrates into a series of revolving dictatorships each operating by its own rules.

progress to a higher standard can never be achieved because it is always one step forward two back

[Aj Sol]

Chuck Todd is an apologist. This is what scares the serious people of the world is that someone like him will always be given a platform to regurgitate corporate talking points. This is what happens when Americans sit back and allow massive corporations to tell us what is right and wrong.

Walter Cronkite died today and its just as well because his profession preceded him several years ago.

[ticonderoga]

"Walter Cronkite died today and its just as well because his profession preceded him several years ago."

Rest in Peace Mr. Cronkite .... well said Aj.

[JMorgan]

There's a commenter on that thread, a lawyer named James Finkelstein, who posted a couple of comments, the first is A PIECE OF ADVICE ON HOW TO INTERVIEW, and PROSECUTING MURDER:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/07/16/todd/view/index53.html?show=all

It's good stuff.

[rwurzer]

Thx for the link. FYI - there's always solid, cogent stuff in the letters sections of Greenwald's Salon.com posts.

[JMorgan]

I agree.

I hope media personalities read it and take a cue from it on how to interview representatives of administrations, past and present, on the air.

Including the next time Liz Cheney ventures off of Fox.

[JMorgan]

Todd has embraced the remedy that was put out by Texas Republican Congressman Mac Thornberry on Hardball in April 2009:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPhldpCfIKk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LZWJqKW1jw

It was ludicrous to hear back then, but to find that it resonated with Chuck Todd is really troubling.

I'd have liked it if Glenn would have gone through Thornberry's "facts" with Chuck Todd, which led Thornberry to the position that the proper venue for dealing with the criminal conduct of our elected officials is by voting them out of office.

[Chernynkaya]

I honestly believe that in the eyes of the world, we come off much better if we thoroughly prosecute those who approved torture. The United States claims the theory of “American Exceptionalism,” which is the idea that the we occupy a special niche among countries because of our national credo, our political institutions, and our unique origins. If that is an important place to be, as President Obama has said, we should protect that exceptional quality by striving to be at least a lawful nation.

But more important than how we are seen by the rest of the world, it is in the eyes of AMERICANS that we are failing. Why should the average American have respect for our system of justice- as unfair as it already is- when we constantly see the powerful and the rich getting away with criminal acts? I for one am more tempted to say, “There is no justice anyway, so why should I follow all the rules? I’ll try to take care of me and mine first.” It breeds disrespect for order.

There are probably some practical reasons to try to sweep this under the rug. But it seems that it won’t just go away, and is now not only a distraction but a festering sore. We will not only recover from torture prosecutions, we will be stronger and more self-respecting.

[northstar11]

could be the ugly secret here is related to the california racist story

everybody's doing it -----cheney and fragos were outed publically

[Chernynkaya]

Um, huh?

[Dunsmuir]

American Exceptionalism was then - not now. Stop deluding yourselg.

[Chernynkaya]

Where did I write that I believe in American Exceptionalism? I said OBAMA did, as he stated in his Cairo speech.

[TheeFullGinsburg]

Todd is NOT saying that what was done was legal or right. He's simply pointing out the politics associated with prosecution, and the inevitable retribution from the other side if they get into power.

We can lock down Washington in a partisan food fight, or we can get something done on health care, cap and trade, education reform etc....

Obama need not start an all out political war right now. Especially when you look at the polling, and the country is set against prosecutions.

If you're going to do it, do it later in his term, or in his second term.

[northstar11]

"""""""the inevitable retribution from the other side if they get into power.""""""

so each side gets to operate by their own set of rules--because to enforce laws is retibution

[Marcospinelli]

GlennGreenwald: This is what you said: you said, "The only important thing the president has to focus on is getting the public's trust on the economy. Cheney, the CIA, and in some respects Sotomayor are cable catnip."

And then, Mika asked you this question: "Is this much ado about nothing, to get the attention off what needs to be done?" She didn't ask you, does Obama think that, she asked you: "Is this much ado about nothing, to get the attention off what needs to be done?"

And Pat Buchanan said, "Well, that's exactly what Chuck said. It's a massive distraction." And then you then said, "I think that the problem here is that lawyers are meant to stretch things; this would be a dangerous slope, this a very dangerous aspect to go after." And then you ended by saying, "I'm sure there are legal minds that will fight and say, I don't know what I'm talking about here, but it seems to me this is a legal and political slippery slope." You were describing your opinion. You even described it that way. You said, I'm sure there are legal minds that will say, I, Chuck Todd, don't know what I'm talking about. You were clearly advocating the idea that this would a distraction from the things that matter, not that just that Obama and Rahm Emanuel think that, but that you [think that].

[Marcospinelli]

That is NOT what Chuck Todd said.

[northstar11]

""""and sit there and always PUT the previous administration on trial - you don't think that we start having retributions on this going forward?""""

[Chernynkaya]

About the retribution from the other side-- Could it possibly get any worse? We are already a deeply divided country and if you don't believe me, all I have to say is Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck vs. Maddow, Olbermann, Greenwald and Hamsher. Additionally, do Republicans work with Democrats on ANYTHING now? I say, since we are already at rock bottom on the bipartisanship idea, now is the BEST time to prosecute, and then let the healing begin.

[CyberGal619]

We SHOULD lock down Washington in a partisan food fight!! People - elected officials and gophers - continuously and unconsionably broke the law and need to be indicted and punished for their crimes. We need a show trial or 12. We need to clean house and move forward.

The public is NOT against prosecutions. Chuck Todd and too many other "journos" are trying to pull that wool over the American public's eyes. We know better and we see through the BS.

[sharonh]

Chuck is saying they are above the law because they were voted into office by us. That's bullsheet to even say they were elected and if, we, the people condoned what they were doing, why did they do it in secret, lieAbout it, and destroyEvidence? This whole talking point stinks.

[Miyake]

Chuck Todd is crazy

[newyorkid]

Torturers should go to prison and get the maximum penalty.

[Labsaregreat]

Lets gear up those CIA hits squads

[peterg76]

Clearly Todd has no clue what the US' repuatation around the world really is. True, a country which always puts the previous government officials on trial is a sign of a troubled democracy at best. However, putting no-one on trial when unambiguous crimes have been committed is worse. Putting leaders on trial only in the case of a sensational scandal in the absence of crime, as in the case of Bill Clinton, is worse still.

Every day that the criminal investigation doesn't happen the real-world US reputation sinks lower. Even a trial that ended in acquittal would at least send a message that Bush and Cheney were an aberration.

Then again, maybe the prospect of tit-for-tat political show trials was a threat, rather than a prediction.

[Beernuts]

In Chuckie-Boy's world, what matters most is that we will be looked upon as some third-world country because we prosecute law breakers who happened to have been at one time elected POTUS??
That our "reputation" and professed credos are more important than actual events? In that case, there really is no "American Way" . There is just the "Way" of convenience, opportunity, greed aggression, violence and force, no matter the inconvenience of those silly little pieces of paper upon which this country was founded.

[VPN]

The embarrassment is having let it happen in the first place and if those who approved and encouraged it are NOT prosecuted its pretty much guaranteed to happen again and again and again. Severe consequences the ONLY remedy to ensure we don't get a repeat.

[kindGSL]

I think what he is hinting at is if we prosecute our own leaders for war crimes, doesn't that open the flood gates to legal challenge by all the other nations which might have grievance against us?

It could lower our standing in that they would no longer be afraid to complain about us. With our dollar already collapsing, this could be a serious threat to our national sense of empire.

It also opens up the whole can of worms regarding our global prosecution of our completely insane Drug War. What is that all about if not arms sales, torture and money laundering?

[shadowgm]

Well, damn, Chuckles - those smaller countries ain't 'struggling with democracy' because they haven't developed a convenient sense of collective amnesia.

How much of this is about the previous admin, and how much of this is about the media dumbly nodding 'okie-doke' every time the White House trotted out their little 'moral clarity' song and dance.

You don't look for moral clarity because you know something's right. You look for moral clarity when you know something's wrong, and you intend to do it anyway.

[InstantDogma]

CT: Nice beer drinker face.