Greenwald Gets It Wrong on Progressives and War

Glenn Greenwald has been writing a series of articles that criticize the Obama administration for endorsing recent  legislation that codifies the indefinite detention of enemy combatants under certain circumstances. Greenwald has also given a lot of attention to Ron Paul's campaign. While Paul advances oppressive domestic policy proposals, he has condemned war and many unjust antiterrorism practices. Greenwald argues that if Paul received the GOP nomination, he would bring these issues into national discourse -- unlike Mitt Romney (challenging Obama).

Greenwald has also strongly criticized progressives for not giving heat to Obama regarding these issues, even though they condemned Bush for many of the same practices. Today, Greenwald continues his series of essays on this topic. He argues that liberals seek to "deprioritize" war and civil liberties in order to focus on social issues, for which the Democrats have a better record.  Greenwad also rejects the critical observation that upper-class white male progressives might perceive war and antiterrorism practices as central to their agendas because they do not experience subordination based on race, gender or class. Greenwald describes this as "grotesque accusatory innuendo." I disagree with Greenwald's latest commentary.

First, let me state that I have a tremendous amount of respect for Greenwald. He is consistent in his positions, unlike many commentators across the political spectrum. He is a tireless advocate for vital issues such as liberty and peace. His articles are also usually well documented and thorough. Nevertheless, his latest article falls short of this standard.

Distorting Progressive Critiques of the Left

First, Greenwald does not establish his main point -- that "Democratic partisans" seek to deprioritize war and civil liberties in order to protect President Obama. Admittedly, many Democrats have been silent about these issues since Obama's election, but they are not the folks that Greenwald targets. Instead, he goes after folks like Megan Carpentier and Katha Pollit. Carpentier and Pollitt, however, do not fit neatly within the "partisan Democratic" box in which Greenwald seeks to force them. Rather than taking on partisan Democrats who are loyal team players, Greenwald challenges commentators who have made progressive critiques of his arguments. This is an important dimension that Greenwald does not acknowledge.

When progressives (myself included) initially criticized Greenwald for writing positively about Paul, he defended his position by stating that while he agrees with Paul on some issues, he finds many of Paul's proposals unconscionable. Yet, Greenwald has failed to return the respect he has demanded. Leftist criticism of Greenwald and others who have discussed Paul in glowing terms does not seek to deprioritize war and antiterrorism practices. Instead, these commentators seek to highlight the deep problems related to Paul's domestic policies. If Greenwald can focus on the positive side of Paul without deprioritizing his negatives, then other progressives can focus on his negative policies without marginalizing war and antiterroism. Indeed, many of Paul's progressive critics concede that they agree with some of his positions.

Identity and Ideology

Greenwald also vehemently rejects the argument that some white male progressives might overlook Paul's negative positions due to their relative social privilege. These arguments offend Greenwald. I disagree with his reaction.  The intersection of identity and ideology are valid progressive concerns.

From an empirical standpoint, Paul has generated more support among white men than others. Most of his voters in Iowa, for example, were  young white male moderates and independents. He only received 14 percent of Republican votes.  Social patterns are entrenched within political affiliation and voting. Women, the poor and persons of color support liberal causes and candidates. Whites, upper-class and man tend to support conservative and issues and candidates.

Greenwald, however, dismisses any role for societal privilege in the recent progressive debates regarding war and social issues. But people who work on issues of racial discrimination, gender, sexuality and poverty have produced substantial research which demonstrates that public opinion on these issues tend to correlate with social status. Whites, for example, have a very positive view regarding the status of race relations; blacks and other people of color do not (see, e.g, here). This leads many of them to oppose policies designed to ameliorate racial inequality.

Greenwald imples that if identity and ideology were linked, then he would have the better argument because he is defending Muslims and persons of color from abuses by the US. Greenwald, however, refuses to engage in this type of reasoning.  Yet, by raising the point, he effectively does make the argument. Many of Paul's supporters have made similar claims in online debates. It strikes me that people of color are mere pawns in this reasoning.

Presumably, Greenwald and others would remain antiwar regardless of the predominant race of people affected by it. Describing Paul as a favored GOP candidate while neglecting any substantial discussion of the group's affected by his domestic policies reveals an acute blind spot. This does make anyone in this position an evil person.  Instead, it just acknowledges the complexity of human perception and intergroup understanding. Studies, for example, confirm that when people know one or more openly LGBT individuals they have a more positive view of gay rights.  The blind spots are removed by interaction. When people treat progressive identity-based arguments as offensive they risk chilling speech on these important matters.

Conclusion

I am glad that Greenwald has written so powerfully on antiwar and antiterrorism issues. By doing so, he has caused a lot of progressives to examine Paul, which has exposed the danger of many of his ideas. Leftist critiques of Paul and his progressive defenders do not deprioritize war and civil liberty. On the contrary, they promote a comprehensive justice that antiwar advocacy alone cannot accomplish.

Juan Willams and Conservatives' Sudden Concern For "Workers' Rights"

NPR's recent decision to fire Juan Williams has caused a media frenzy. Although I find Williams' comments offensive and bigoted, I must admit that I am disturbed by the American rush to punish people harshly for making controversial statements.

Why A Progressive Could Feel Uncomfortable About NPR's Decision
People from Shirley Sherrod to Rick Sanchez have recently lost employment over controversies caused by their comments on issues of public concern. In some instances, the discharges have resulted from kneejerk decisions made with incomplete or misleading evidence (Sherrod).

But even when the firings resulted from deliberative processes, as in the case of Isaiah Washington from television's Grey's Anatomy, the discharges still bother me because they isolate a single moment in an individual's history and make it the source of severe sanctions: loss of employment and public shame. Flexibility, proportionality, and context do not exist in these situations. Instead, punishment is the driving force. This does not strike me as a progressive stance.

Academic Freedom for Everyone?
Perhaps I am too impacted by my own status as an academic (with tenure), but I have developed a strong tolerance for controversial and disagreeable speech. In fact, I first became a blogger because I wanted to express my opinion on views with which I disagreed.

Within academia, people do not generally lose their jobs when they make controversial statements; instead, these controversial comments tend to generate debate, reflection and thoughtful criticism. These academic elements are conspicuously absent from American political discourse. I believe that we all suffer from this lack of deliberative reflection and civil exchange of ideas.

Rather than engaging in civil commentary regarding controversy, the public often demands that individuals who make unpopular statements pay for these comments with their jobs. I suspect, however, that most individuals would not like their own employers to apply the same standard. If Americans routinely lost their jobs every time they offended others, the unemployment rate would soar to heights previously unknown. The fact that many of the individuals targeted by punitive firings are public figures does not justify the disparate approaches.

Although rash discharges in response to speech trouble me, companies absolutely have the right to fire employees -- as long as the discharges do not violate the law or a contractual provision. Accordingly, NPR has the right to let Williams go.

Furthermore, I also understand that in some situations an employee's speech could harm the employer or its clientele, thus warranting a discharge. It is unclear to me, however, that this risk has existed in the litany of recent cases in which public figures have lost their jobs as a result of controversial speech.

Why Conservatives Are Being Hypocrites Regarding NPR's Decision
Finally, I am deeply offended by the hypocritical conservative response to NPR' termination of Williams. As Glenn Greenwald so excellently observes, conservatives were completely silent or joyful when people like "Octavia Nasr, Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez, Eason Jordan, Peter Arnett, Phil Donahue, Ashleigh Banfield, Bill Maher, Ward Churchill, Chas Freeman, Van Jones and so many others" lost their jobs due to controversial speech. Yet, the conservative media and politicians are in a state of utter despair over NPR's termination of Williams. This response is blatantly hypocritical.

The conservative response is also hypocritical because conservatives are usually callous to the conditions of workers. They hate labor unions, do not want workers to organize to create rights in the workplace, and often blame labor for many of the nation's economic problems. Yet, when the highly compensated Williams -- who had a written contract to protect him -- faced discharge, conservatives mobilized to defend him. If the wealthy Williams deserves employment-related freedoms, so do poor and working class workers who, in the absence of unionization, usually do not even have contracts to protect them.

Of course, as Greenwald also observes, conservative do not really care much about Williams' employment. Instead, they are angered that NPR punished him for expressing anti-Muslim bigotry. Thus, NPR is the new object of condemnation in a year of conservative politics laced with anti-Muslim bigotry (as in the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy).

Conservative lawmakers have even seized upon the moment to renew their effort to kill funding of public broadcasting. Conservative disdain for public broadcast funding and of funding for the arts has a very long history, and it has often been rooted in bigotry (recall the efforts to stigmatize gay artists like Marlon Riggs and Robert Mapplethorpe who received public money in the 1990s).

Final Take
NPR made a business decision to fire Williams. I do not contest the organization's right to make this call. I do wonder, however, whether the country can learn to become more comfortable with controversial speech and to construct a more civil public discourse. Rash firings of individuals -- followed by a political campaign of hypocrisy by opponents -- can only make matters worse.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald Says: Blame Obama, Rather Than Lieberman

Glenn Greenwald and I agree on political issues more often than not. His latest article does not change this.

Greenwald's most recent column seeks to debunk a narrative that portrays President Obama as the liberal "victim" of "centrist" Democrats in Congress who refuse to endorse more progressive healthcare reform measures, like the public plan. Greenwald argues that the proposed "compromise" legislation actually reflects the position the White House has always held on the subject of reform:

As was painfully predictable all along, the final bill will not have any form of public option, nor will it include the wildly popular expansion of Medicare coverage. Obama supporters are eager to depict the White House as nothing more than a helpless victim in all of this -- the President so deeply wanted a more progressive bill but was sadly thwarted in his noble efforts by those inhumane, corrupt Congressional "centrists." Right. The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start -- the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry.

Apparently, Russ Feingold agrees with Greenwald's assessment of the White House position. And as I argued yesterday, I agree that liberals must hold the White House accountable on this issue:

Perhaps the chickens are indeed roosting -- at least according to several stories that appeared yesterday on many leading political blogs, including TPM, Huffington Post and Politico. According to these reports, Emanuel personally visited Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and demanded that he give Senator Joe Lieberman exactly what he wants regarding healthcare reform. Lieberman opposes a public plan and a buy-in option for Medicare. Lieberman has repeatedly vowed to filibuster any proposed healthcare reform legislation that contains either of these proposals. The recent reports which claim that Emanuel has told Reid to cater to Lieberman -- a claim the White House denies -- confirms the July statements of Maxine Waters.

Some careful readers will also remember that the White House intervened and allowed Lieberman to maintain his leadership positions on Senate committees, despite the fact that he ran as an Independent in 2006 and endorsed John McCain for president in 2008 during a speech he delivered at the Republican National Convention. Lieberman has threatened to kill the most important legislation that Congress has proposed in decades, and the White House continues to protect him politically and to cater to his interests.

What do you think?

Being Right About the Right

Glenn Greenwald's latest column places some perspective around the latest clashes between liberals and conservatives. Although Greenwald acknowledges that "some people react with particular animus towards the first black president," he contends that "there is nothing new about the character of the American Right or their concerted efforts to destroy the legitimacy of Obama's presidency."

To support his claim, Greenwald chronicles some of the nasty, partisan attacks on Bill Clinton. The Monica Lewinsky drama is obvious, but some people may not remember many of the other unsubstantiated and totally lunatic allegations against Clinton. Visit Greenwald's page on Salon.Com (or see Dissenting Justice) for a list of some of these outrageous assertions.

Being Right About the Right
I completely agree with Greenwald. In fact, back in October 2008, I saw this happening already with respect to Obama. I used the moment to "school" some of the younger voters who mistakenly believed that Obama would unify the nation, the world, the parties, etc., but that Hillary Clinton was too divisive for the Democratic Party. I am probably understating things by saying that I found this argument utterly annoying, naive, and misguided.

Although I am modest, I love being right. Here's a snip from Dissenting Justice, 10/18/2008:

One of the things that perplexed me the most during the Democratic primaries was the portrayal of the Clintons as "divisive," a charge that made Hillary Clinton unfit for the presidency. Many of Obama's younger supporters, following his lead, said that Clinton represented "failed politics" of the past, that she would just bring "more of the same" and that all she knew how to do was fight. Obama, they said, offered a "fresh face" and practiced a new form of politics that would unify the country and the world. Recently, Obama himself said he would, in fact, change the world. . . .

[T]he notion that Obama could somehow escape Republican attacks and bring unity to the two parties seemed like a dubious claim. Some of my closest friends labeled me "too cynical" for making that argument, but in political analysis, I take the cynicism charge as a compliment rather than a slur. . . .

Many of Obama's supporters are voting and paying attention to politics for the very first time. . . .But I wonder whether these young and excited O-voters. . .know that division is a natural part of our two-party system? Have they come to grips with the reality that if Obama wins, the smearing will only get louder and the digging deeper? Do they now realize that political work is often messy -- even dirty -- and that meaningful, large scale change only comes through contestation and battle?

For the full read, check out: Look Who's "Divisive" Now: The Anti-Obama Attacks Similar to Republican Smearing of the Clintons.

Joe Klein Says Glenn Greenwald Is a Heartless "Bully" Who Does Not Praise the Military

Glenn Greenwald has been taking several mainstream media figures to task recently. Joe Klein of Time Magazine made the list after Klein bad-mouthed leftists, including Greenwald, at a "picnic." Apparently, Klein described Greenwald as "evil," a "crazy civil liberties absolutist" and "crazily anti-national security." Amai of NoMoreMisterNiceBlog, a picnic attendee, wrote about the incident. Greenwald then wrote a scathing critique of Klein that apparently quotes various emails that Klein posted to a listserve.

Remarkably, Klein has responded with a pretty bizarre essay. First, Klein describes the person he talked to at the picnic as a "pathetic woman acolyte of Greenwald's." Second, Klein condemns Greenwald for not praising the military or Bush's invasive surveillance activities.

We Need More Critical Analysis -- Not "Praise"
If Klein and other journalists had been more critical of United States militarism during the Bush administration, perhaps the country would not have started two unnecessary wars that the public has now come to regret. Even conservative George Will wants the military to give up on Afghanistan, and the public has long discarded the idea that invading Iraq was a good idea. If writers like Greenwald joined mainstream journalists and replaced criticism with praise, the public would lose an important resource.

Are Listserve Postings "Private"?
Klein also describes Greenwald as "thoroughly dishonorable" and "hypocritical" for publishing his "private" emails, while condemning Bush's surveillance activities. Posting analysis to a listserve, however, does not involve the same privacy interests as a telephone conservation. Furthermore, disclosure of "personal" commentary by a private citizen certainly does not have the same political or legal implications as the same action by the federal government.

Listserve readers can and often forward commentary to individuals beyond the list. By contrast, people do not expect the government to intercept their personal conversations. And while I am not sure whether I would quote such commentary, I am definitely certain that I would not call someone dishonorable for quoting statements from a listserve. If Klein is so outraged that Greenwald quoted his listserve comments, then governmental invasions of privacy should upset him even more, particularly in light of the fact that the Fourth Amendment binds state and federal governments -- not private citizens like Greenwald. Instead, Klein apparently believes that people who condemn invasions of privacy in the name of national security are extremists. This sounds a little like Rush Limbaugh suddenly favoring the right of privacy only after prosecutors started examining his medical records for signs of illegal prescription drug use.

Thought Question: Is Greenwald "dishonorable" or is Klein is so unhinged by Greenwald that he cannot control his public commentary (verbal and written) regarding Greenwald?

Disclosure: Although I am a huge fan of Greenwald, I am not an "acolyte" of anyone -- certainly not a "pathetic acolyte." I have even criticized Greenwald in a post or two.

UPDATE: Greenwald's other "pathetic acolytes" think Joe Klein's essay is rubbish. See, e.g., Putting the 'Oh No' in 'Oh No He Didn't'. See also -- the comments section to Klein's essay.

Greenwald thinks it's rubbish too: Beltway culture, checks on journalists and secrecy obligations.

Glenn Greenwald Mercilessly Dismantles Marc Ambinder

Former Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge has admitted that President Bush manipulated terrorism warnings for political gain. Nevertheless, Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic says that mainstream journalists rightfully dismissed liberals who reached this conclusion about Bush during his presidency. Ambinder argues that these individuals were only acting out of "gut hatred" for Bush (translation: a reasonable person would not hold that opinion). Glenn Greenwald responds with grand intellectual rage (the best kind). He also argues that journalists who gave Bush the benefit of the doubt deserve criticism -- not lefties who questioned his motives (agreed). It's a great read!

See: Fringe Leftists Losers: Wrong Even When They're Right

PS: Ambinder subsequently "apologized."

Darren Hutchinson "Guest Blogging" on Salon.Com Aug. 13

Hello, readers. On Thursday, I'll will do some substitute-blogging for the vacationing (finally) Glenn Greenwald at Salon.Com. As you some of you already know, I really like Glenn's blog, so I am very excited by this opportunity.

We've arranged a team of guest-bloggers -- one for each day next week -- that is truly great and which will, I'm certain, provide much provocative and fulfilling commentary:

Monday, August 10 - Digby
Tuesday, August 11 - Pam Spaulding
Wednesday, August 12 - The Washington Independent's Daphne Eviatar
Thursday, August 13 - Law Professor Darren Hutchinson
Friday, August 14 - Marcy Wheeler

Please visit Salon.Com frequently - and especially on Thursday, August 13.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald Takes Democrats to Task for Gushing Embrace of Arlen Specter

Major kudos to Glenn Greenwald. He is one of the few progressive bloggers who has the courage and intellectual consistency to speak out when the Democrats betray the liberal values they claim to embrace. His recent analysis of Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Party -- a completely opportunistic move designed solely to keep him employed and empowered -- demonstrates the principled nature of Greenwald's blog.

Here is a clip from the article, What Specter's switch says about him, the Democrats and our political spectrum:

Democrats will understandably celebrate today’s announcement, but beyond the questions of raw political power, it is mystifying why they would want to build their majority by embracing politicians who reject most of their ostensible views.

Reports today suggest that Democratic officials promised Specter that the party establishment would support him, rather than a real Democrat, in a primary. If true, few events more vividly illustrate the complete lack of core beliefs of Democratic leaders, as well as the rapidly diminishing differences between the parties. . . .Specter is highly likely to reprise the Joe Lieberman role for Democrats: a “Democrat” who leads the way in criticizing and blocking Democratic initiatives, forcing the party still further towards Republican policies. . . .

Arlen Specter is one of the worst, most soul-less, most belief-free individuals in politics. The moment most vividly illustrating what Specter is: prior to the vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he went to the floor of the Senate and said what the bill "seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years" and is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He then proceeded to vote YES on the bill's passage (emphasis added).

Great stuff.

Et Tu, Olbermann? Some Liberals Finally Realize That for Certain Issues, "Change" Actually Means "More of the Same"

Ever since President Obama became the frontrunner in the Democratic primaries, many liberals have gleefully discarded the useful concepts of dissent, critical thinking, and a sanely guarded view of politicians. Rather than approaching politics with critical distance, many liberals became so emotionally charged over the prospects of winning the White House, expanding the party's lead in Congress, and electing an amorphously left-identified black man that they refused to listen to others who questioned whether any politician could deliver the grand promises of "change" that Obama and his supporters made during his campaign.

After President Obama took office, it became abundantly clear that he would continue engaging in some policies that liberals derided during the Bush administration. A few progressives criticized the continuation of these policies, the inherent contradiction between Obama's promises and his embrace of these policies, and the hypocrisy of liberals who failed to condemn Obama, even though they skewered Bush for the exact same conduct. These arguments, however, led to a concerted "pushback" from many liberal protectors of the administration.

Dissenting Justice, for example, provoked a storm among some liberals after running a series of essays which argues that Obama's position on "rendition" differs from Bush's practices in "form" rather than "substance." Since that time, President Obama has embraced positions that are similar to or indistinct from Bush's stance on policies such as state secrets and indefinite detention.

Et tu, Olbermann?
It now seems that some liberals have given up trying to deny the closeness of Obama's and Bush's positions on some aspects of antiterrorism policy. MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann ranks among the most effusive and uncritical supporters of President Obama. During the Democratic primaries, Olbermann was responsible for spreading a grossly distorted -- actually, downright deceitful -- story which implied that Hillary Clinton remained in the primaries because she was waiting for the possible assassination of Obama. Olbermann produced a nearly 1/2-hour rant in which he accused Clinton of being racist, selfish, insensitive, and many other undesirable adjectives. The Obama campaign immediately emailed the video to other media, after which it quickly spread around the Internet.

Until recently, Olbermann did not bend in his effusive portrayals of Obama and his scathing and acidic criticism of his opponents. But even Olbermann has shifted away from his uncritical stance now that the Obama administration has again deployed a broad state secrets defense to oppose lawsuits challenging the Bush administration's use of warrantless wiretapping and rendition.

Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald, who, unlike many other liberals, has not become seduced into uncritical submission by the Obama administration, does a great job analyzing Olbermann's and other liberals' opposition to Obama's position on state secrets. Earlier this week, Greenwald himself wrote a lengthy article that criticizes Obama's deployment of the state secrets doctrine.

Here is a clip from Greenwald's essay on Olbermann:

Last night, Keith Olbermann -- who has undoubtedly been one of the most swooning and often-uncritical admirers of Barack Obama of anyone in the country (behavior for which I rather harshly criticized him in the past) -- devoted the first two segments of his show to emphatically lambasting Obama and Eric Holder's DOJ for the story I wrote about on Monday: namely, the Obama administration's use of the radical Bush/Cheney state secrets doctrine and -- worse still -- a brand new claim of "sovereign immunity" to insist that courts lack the authority to decide whether the Bush administration broke the law in illegally spying on Americans.

The fact that Keith Olbermann, an intense Obama supporter, spent the first ten minutes of his show attacking Obama for replicating (and, in this instance, actually surpassing) some of the worst Bush/Cheney abuses of executive power and secrecy claims reflects just how extreme is the conduct of the Obama DOJ here.

According to Greenwald, Obama's biggest supporters have no choice but to point out how his policies mimic Bush's because:

It would require a virtually pathological level of tribal loyalty and monumental intellectual dishonesty not to object just as vehemently as we watch the Obama DOJ repeatedly invoke these very same theories and, in this instance, actually invent a new one that not even the Bush administration espoused.

Unfortunately, in the recent past, many liberals actually placed "tribal loyalty" above intellectual consistency and adherence to progressive values.

Greenwald also observes that the state secrets issue has generated passionate criticism on vehemently pro-Obama sites such as Daily Kos and Booman Tribune and at the reliably liberal, though not as visibly pro-Obama, TPM. Previously, commentary on Daily Kos that offerred even slightly critical perspectives on the Obama administration often faced stiff resistance or, even worse, silence and dismissal. Apparently, things are indeed changing for a few people.

Related readings on Dissenting Justice:

Obama Administration Will Appeal Court Ruling Which Allows Habeas Petitions for Certain Captives in Afghanistan

Rendition, Secrecy and Torture: Inseparable?

Forcing His Hand or Providing Political Cover? Congressional Democrats Introduce Legislation on "State Secrets"

Elevating Form Over Substance: Liberals Now Argue that They Oppose the Label of Bush's Program, Not the Substance

Still a Flip-Flop: My Fellow Liberals Push Back Against Allegations of Inconsistency Concerning Rendition

Ryan Lizza "Hearts" Rahm Emanuel: Glenn Greenwald Dissects The New Yorker's "Love Letter" to Rahm

Glenn Greenwald of Salon.Com has released another irreverent essay, which ensures that he will forever remain an edgy blogger, rather than becoming a writer for a mainstream media conglomerate. In his latest essay, Greenwald dissects a "love letter" (also known as an "article") on Rahm Emmanuel that appears in The New Yorker.

Here's a clip (from a very lengthy essay):

[]The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza has written a very lengthy profile of Emanuel -- almost 5,300 words -- that is so reverent, one-sided, and glorifying that it is hard to believe it wasn't written by Emanuel himself. In fact, much of the piece consists of Emanuel praising himself and Lizza writing it all down uncritically. It's almost impossible to walk on the streets of Washington, DC, without bumping into a vehement critic of Emanuel, but Lizza doesn't manage to include any comments from any of them.

Instead -- like a writer from People Magazine wanting to ensure continued access -- he confines himself to quoting only Rahm's best-est friends: David Axelrod ("one of Emanuel’s best friends"); Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen ("a friend of manuel’s"); and Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg ("an old friend" whose DC house Emanuel lives in). Other than Lizza's inclusion of some light mockery by Fidel Castro of Emanuel's name, those are the only people who are allowed to speak about Emanuel in Lizza's piece (other than Emanuel himself).

We thus "learn" from Lizza's story that Emanuel really loves his kids ("I’m going to finally get to see my kids after a month. So that’s all I give a fuck about," and at the end of the interview, "he seemed more cheerful, knowing that he was that much closer to seeing his family"); he's "one of the more colorful Beltway celebrities . . . known for both his mercurial temperament and his tactical brilliance" and for "intimidating opponents and referees alike but never quite losing himself in the midst of battle"; his first-grade teacher praised him for "being larger than life"; Emanuel was key to the "historic" stimulus victory ("The last President to preside over a legislative victory of this magnitude so early in his Administration was Franklin Roosevelt"); he has been dealing with Congress "politely and with due deference"; when he spoke about his grandpa ("Gramp"), "his eyes welled up with tears"; Obama's selection of Emanuel "shows that [Obama] is honest enough about what he doesn’t know to try to fill in the gaps in his own experience" and reflects "an emphasis not on ideology but on details and problem-solving."

Rahm, you see, is -- as his good friend Stan put it -- "not an ideological Democrat. He’s not ideologically liberal. He comes out of Chicago politics, which is more transactional." He gets things done. Every political slogan of the Obama White House -- pragmatism over ideology; we're problem-solvers not partisans -- magically weaves its way into Lizza's narrative paean to Rahm. The only thing missing is Rahm's favorite color and recipes (though we do learn one of his winter get-away spots: Park City, Utah).

Check out the rest here: Ryan Lizza's People Magazine love letter to Rahm Emanuel.

Forcing His Hand or Providing Political Cover? Congressional Democrats Introduce Legislation on "State Secrets"

Glenn Greenwald has been providing extensive coverage of the debate surrounding Obama's recent assertion of the "state secrets privilege." The privilege shields from disclosure information or testimony related to national security. Several courts have broadly applied the privilege and have dismissed anti-torture and other civil liberties-related lawsuits that challenge various aspects of Bush's "war on terror." Many liberals contend that Bush used the privilege to create a wall of secrecy to hide torture and other deprivations of human dignity.

During his presidential campaign, Obama pledged to abandon Bush's approach to governmental secrecy and to create more transparency within the Executive Branch. According to some liberals, however, he "failed" his first test on this issue when he recently invoked the privilege to defend the dismissal of an anti-torture case. Bush successfully asserted the privilege in the same case, which is now on appeal, in order to secure dismissal.

Congressional Democrats Introduce Legislation Concerning Use of State Secrets Privilege
Obama's decision to invoke the privilege has generated criticism among civil liberties advocates. Now, members of Congress have added their voice to the situation. Yesterday, Pat Leahy and Arlen Spector reintroduced the State Secrets Protection Act of 2008, which Hillary Clinton and other senators introduced last year. Several House Democrats have introduced a similar measure.

The proposed law would require courts to evaluate each individual item of evidence in order to determine whether any of the materials contain sensitive information. Several courts have broadly recognized the privilege and dismissed cases without conducting an item-by-item review of materials which, absent the privilege, the government would normally have to disclose.

Although the proposed legislation would not prevent courts from dismissing cases based on the privilege -- particularly if they broadly defer to the government on the issue of national security -- adherence to the item-specific approach would provide greater transparency. In addition, another provision which would require courts to consider the possibility of a "non-privileged" alternative (such as a stipulation of facts, redacted submissions, etc.) could potentially mitigate against dismissals based solely on recognition of the privilege. The government, however, could simply deny the feasibility of creating a workable alternative to the desired materials without revealing sensitive information.

Politics and Law: Could the Proposed Legislation Provide Political Cover for Obama While Advancing the Interests of Congressional Liberals?
The Obama administration has stated that it is conducting a review of cases that implicate the state secrets privilege. But while assertion of the privilege angers liberal activists, DOJ lawyers -- who must engage in "zealous advocacy" on behalf of the government -- predictably decided to "stay the course" when they had to pick a strategy to argue an actual case. Perhaps the movement on this issue by members of Congress (prior to the completion of DOJ review) demonstrates that they predict this "smart" legal strategy will ultimately outweigh political considerations.

Liberals in Congress, however, might also favor the law in order to provide Obama with political "cover" and to advance their own interests. The proposed measure would either require Obama to follow a path that he personally desires but which his staff and political moderates and conservatives disfavor -- or which he disfavors, but which a well organized and influential part of the Democratic party supports. The measure would also allow liberals in Congress to notch a victory on an issue that civil libertarians favor -- and which created an immense amount of controversy during the Bush administration.

Neither Obama nor Senate Democrats, however, probably want to engage in highly public battle over this issue. Perhaps Obama and Congressional Democrats have quietly "negotiated" a path that will provide the president with political cover among liberals, while allowing him the latitude to manage the affairs of the Executive Branch, and which scores points for the lawmakers among liberal organizations. The proposed measure could potentially accomplish that balance. Because the statute makes a strong statement against the blanket assertion of the privilege, but does not disturb the typical practice of courts deferring to the president on matters of national security, both sides could come away with a "victory."

An Aside: Separation of Powers
If Obama strongly disapproves of the measure, he could veto it (in the event that Congress passes it). He could also challenge its application in court on "separation of powers" grounds. Although Congress has the authority to establish evidentiary standards for use in federal courts, this particular evidentiary privilege arises out of executive power. Obama could argue that Congress (or even the courts) lacks the power to define the boundaries around which the privilege operates. Historically, presidents have not been successful when they have made these types of arguments (e.g., Richard Nixon).

[Editor's Note: My colleague Amanda Frost has examined (and rejected) separation of powers concerns in this setting. See here.]

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

Rendition, Secrecy and Torture: Inseparable?

Just As I Predicted: Obama Administration Invokes State Secrets Privilege in Anti-Torture Lawsuit

Speaking of Obama, Rendition and Torture. . . .

Rendition, Secrecy and Torture: Inseparable?

A week ago, L.A. Times journalist Greg Miller published an article which reported that the Obama administration would continue Bush’s rendition program. Rendition describes the CIA's transfer of individuals to other countries for interrogation, prosecution or detention. During the Bush administration, many human rights groups and activists condemned rendition on four discrete grounds: 1. Rendered individuals lacked access to courts; 2. Rendered individuals lacked access to lawyers; 3. The government used rendition to “outsource” torture; and 4. The government rendered individuals to prolonged detention in CIA prisons.

Miller acknowledged in his article that Obama has ordered interrogators to comply with laws prohibiting torture and commanded the CIA to close its prisons. Nevertheless, the article stated that Obama would continue and perhaps expand the use of rendition.

Miller’s article generated a very vocal pushback from many liberals. The standard argument in Obama’s defense contends that Miller grossly distorted the nature of Obama’s rendition program by linking it to Bush. Unlike Obama, Bush practiced “extraordinary rendition,” not “rendition,” because he sent people to torture and indefinite detention. Liberal defenders of Obama’s rendition program dismissed the article as the product of a “punked” journalist, and many of them deemed critics of Obama’s continuation of rendition as either right-wing conservatives looking to bash the president or well intentioned liberals confused over the meaning of rendition.

Liberal Defenders of Rendition Condemn Obama's Assertion of the State Secrets Privilege
The last few days, however, have produced a lot of clarity on this subject, and many individuals who originally defended Obama's use of rendition now express outrage. Their anger arises primarily from Obama’s recent decision to assert the “state secrets privilege” in a rendition-related lawsuit.

Civil liberties groups criticized Bush for broadly invoking the privilege in order to resist disclosing information related to rendition. Many courts have recognized the privilege and dismissed lawsuits filed by individuals who claim the government rendered them to torture and other abuses. Human rights groups believed that Obama would completely abandon this practice. They were wrong.

The ACLU described the Obama administration's recent assertion of the privilege as offering “more of the same.” The ACLU represents the plaintiff in that particular case. Nevertheless, several liberal bloggers who initially defended Obama's rendition policies now express deep disappointment over his assertion of the state secrets privilege.

Glenn Greenwald
Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald (one of my favorite commentators) blasted Miller’s analysis as “wildly exaggerated and plainly inaccurate.” Yesterday, however, Greenwald argued that by invoking the state secrets privilege, Obama “resoundingly and disgracefully” failed his “first test on civil liberties and accountability.”

Andrew Sullivan
Pro-Obama blogger Andrew Sullivan predictably defended the president after the publication of Miller’s article. Sullivan argued that Miller “got rolled by the usual suspects” and that Obama’s new policies make “the detention and rendition of terror suspects much less worrying.”

Now that the Obama administration has invoked the state secrets privilege, Sullivan suddenly appears “worried.” Sullivan says that the decision “is a depressing sign that the Obama administration will protect the Bush-Cheney torture regime from the light of day. And with each decision to cover for their predecessors, the Obamaites become retroactively complicit in them.”

Hilzoy
Popular liberal blogger Hilzoy also criticized Miller’s article (which sparked an exchange between the two of us) for not properly distinguishing Obama's policies from Bush. Hilzoy argued that: “It's important . . . to note that extraordinary rendition is not the same as rendition proper. Rendition is just moving people from one jurisdiction . . . to another; includes [sic] all sorts of perfectly normal things, like extradition, which are not problematic legally.”

Obama’s assertion of the state secrets privilege, however, troubles Hilzoy. She offers the following critical analysis of Obama’s legal arguments: “Like every other Bush administration court filing I have read, it is striking not just for the breadth of the powers it claims for the government, but for the complete absence of any concern for justice.”

Supporting Rendition Contradicts Liberal Concerns Over Secrecy and Civil Liberties – To Some Extent
Although some liberals support rendition (minus the intentional or effective rendering of individuals to torture or prolonged detention) their position is potentially unstable because rendition conflicts with their expressed concern over governmental secrecy, their desire for transparency, and their defense of civil liberty. Consequently, I predict that the Obama administration will continue to disappoint liberals who desire absolute transparency and a strong commitment to civil liberties under all circumstances -- but who, nonetheless, support rendition (as distinct from "extraordinary rendition"). Here’s why.

First, for the last eight years, human rights activists have argued that diplomatic assurances are ineffective against torture. But during his confirmation hearings, CIA director Panetta said that the Obama administration would in fact call upon the State Department to make sure that the CIA does not render individuals to torture. If rendered individuals face torture during the Obama administration, then liberals will have to question why they supported the practice in the first place -- especially in light of human rights literature which states unequivocally that diplomacy cannot prevent torture.

Second, Panetta also stated during his confirmation hearings that he would seek permission to use harsher interrogation methods “if necessary.” This position sounds exactly like Bush’s promotion of “enhanced interrogation” practices, which previously angered liberals. Moreover, some human rights organizations argue that the Army Field Manual -- which Obama has ordered interrogators to follow -- permits torture under certain circumstances.

Because rendition lacks judicial or administrative oversight, CIA agents will have greater opportunities to utilize harsh or tortuous interrogation methods -- or to outsource the practice to other nations. Thus, liberal support for rendition does not help to safeguard the bodily integrity of terrorism suspects.

Finally, while some liberal bloggers try to link “rendition proper” with accepted practices such as extradition, the CIA’s policy of abducting individuals (regardless of whether the government renders them to torture or prolonged detention) differs dramatically from extradition because it lacks judicial or administrative oversight and because individuals do not have a right to counsel. The lack of judicial review and legal representation allows violations of anti-torture laws to go undetected or unpunished – which is exactly why Obama’s (and Bush's) assertion of the state secrets doctrine bothers many liberals. Some amount of secrecy, however, comes with this messy territory. Public and open "abductions," to which due process attaches, do not resemble true abductions; instead they look much more like ordinary arrests (which could lead to extradition).

Thinking Out Loud: My Unsettled Position on the State Secrets Privilege
If rendition is legal and acceptable (which some liberals contend), then I would argue that the government can legitimately shield a lot of the details from public disclosure. Many bloggers argue, however, that the government has used the privilege to protect from disclosure actions that cannot qualify as relevant to national security or which constitute or reveal deprivations of human rights. But privileges often operate prophylactically by shielding certain categories of information from discovery -- even if disclosing such materials would reveal wrongdoing or if disclosure would not frustrate the very purpose underlying recognition of the privilege (in this case, to safeguard intelligence and to protect national security). Courts apply privileges broadly because the risk of disclosure could “chill” otherwise legitimate communications or actions; also, courts could erroneously require disclosure of damaging material unrelated to the litigation.

In this setting, however, courts have applied the privilege quite broadly, and this has inevitably resulted in the dismissal of litigation. Some critics argue that those courts should have examined every item of potential evidence and determined on an item-specific basis whether to apply the privilege. But if these same courts had actually followed this more transparent approach -- yet deferred to the government's determination that disclosure of an individual item of evidence would implicate national security -- the courts would likely have reached the same conclusion and dismissed the litigation.

Unlike many of my colleagues, I have not taken a firm position on the state secrets privilege. Nevertheless, I believe that Obama has a strong argument (as did Bush) that the nature of rendition requires vigorous protection of the privilege. Supporters of rendition (including many liberals) argue that it promotes national security. If this is true, then the government should probably have a great deal of control – if not absolute control -- over the details of the program.

If rendition does not advance national security (or if does so infrequently), then liberals should rethink their support of the practice. Perhaps they should advocate alternative procedures for transferring suspects -- like extradition -- that are more open and transparent. By endorsing rendition, liberals are crediting, to some extent, the government’s assertion of privilege and secrecy, which in turn facilitates the human rights abuses that liberals passionately condemn.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

Just As I Predicted: Obama Administration Invokes State Secrets Privilege in Anti-Torture Lawsuit

Panetta: Rendition Will Continue, Would Ask Obama to Authorize Harsher Interrogation Methods "If Necessary"

Elevating Form Over Substance: Liberals Now Argue that They Oppose the Label of Bush's Program, Not the Substance

Still a Flip-Flop: My Fellow Liberals Push Back Against Allegations of Inconsistency Concerning Rendition

Major Flip-Flop by Human Rights Watch: Organization Waiting for Obama to Develop Kinder, Gentler Rendition Program

Still a Flip-Flop: My Fellow Liberals Push Back Against Allegations of Inconsistency Concerning Rendition

For an analysis of Obama's comments on rendition during his interview with the New York Times, visit this link: Obama's "Interesting" Comments About Rendition.

During the Bush administration, many liberal organizations passionately criticized "rendition" (sometimes called "extraordinary rendition"). Critics argued that Bush employed rendition to "outsource" torture or to secret terrorism suspects. They also asserted that diplomatic channels could not reliably protect transferees from torture because it occurs secretly. Finally, many activists argued that even without torture, rendition violated norms of procedural fairness because the rendered individuals do not have the ability to appear before a court to contest the transfer and because they do not have access to legal counsel.

After an L.A. Times article reported that Obama will continue the renditions policy, many liberals have come forward to defend the new boss. The typical liberal defense argues that rendition is not wrong in and of itself, but that removal of persons for the purpose of torturing or indefinitely detaining them violates human rights norms. Because Obama has banned the use of torture (which pre-existing statutes and treaties already prohibited) and ordered the CIA to close its longterm detention centers, many liberals dismiss the L.A. Times article as misleading.

After reviewing much of the pro-rendition liberal pushback, I have collected my thoughts and written a response. Here's a summary: the liberal defense is strained, dishonest, surprisingly nuanced, and contrary to true progressive politics because it elevates "party" over principle.

Liberals Opposed Rendition Regardless of Whether It Led to Torture
During the Bush administration liberals argued that rendition - whether for the purpose of torture or otherwise - violated human rights and constitutional norms. Many activists demanded that the U.S. abandon the rendition program altogether or that other countries refrain from helping enforce it (e.g., by allowing CIA flights over their airspace). They also demanded that the U.S. not transfer individuals to countries where they would likely experience torture or transfer anyone without judicial approval.

In January 2008, for example, Amnesty International published a very thorough report entitled "State of Denial: Europe's Role in Secret Detention and Rendition." The report makes several recommendations to prevent European complicity in U.S. rendition activities, including that:

European states should introduce measures that include: only transferring individuals to the custody of another state, or facilitating such a transfer, if the transfer is carried out under judicial supervision; and ensuring that no one is forcibly returned to any place where they may be at risk of serious human rights violations.

The report also defines rendition as a transfer that lacks judicial oversight, not one that necessarily results in torture:

Amnesty International uses the term “rendition” to describe the international transfer of individuals from the custody of one state to another by means that bypass judicial and administrative due process. Renditions violate international law by failing to respect requirements of due process, and frequently involve multiple human rights violations, including unlawful and arbitrary detention; torture or other ill-treatment; and enforced disappearance.

And in a 2006 report, Amnesty International condemned rendition generally -- regardless of whether it facilitates torture -- because it takes place without prior judicial validation:

[T]here is no legal or judicial mechanism to ensure that [rendition protects the public]. The methodology is to grab first, sometimes on flimsy or non-existent evidence, and to ask questions later.

The report makes several recommendations, including the following:

Do not render or otherwise transfer to the custody of another state anyone suspected or accused of security offences unless the transfer is carried out under judicial supervision and in full observance of due legal process.

Ensure that anyone subject to transfer has the right to challenge its legality before an independent tribunal, and that they have access to an independent lawyer and an effective right of appeal.

Do not receive into custody anyone suspected or accused of security offences unless the transfer is carried out under judicial supervision and in full observance of due legal process. . . .

Bring all such detainees before a judicial authority within 24 hours of entry into custody.

Ensure that detainees have prompt access to legal counsel and to family members, and that lawyers and family members are kept informed of the detainee’s whereabouts.

Ensure that detainees who are not nationals of the detaining country have access to diplomatic or other representatives of their country of nationality or former habitual residence.

Amnesty International does not limit its opposition to rendition to torture, but to any transfer that lacks judicial oversight and other common procedural safeguards. Although these procedures could help to prevent or to uncover torture, they are important rights on their own.

A famed 2007 report of the European Parliament also condemns "extraordinary rendition" because it lacks a judicial component. The report states that:

[E]xtraordinary rendition is an extra-judicial practice which contravenes established international human rights standards. . .whereby an individual suspected of involvement in terrorism is illegally abducted, arrested and/or transferred into the custody of US officials and/or transported to another country for interrogation which, in the majority of cases, involves incommunicado detention and torture . . . .

Likewise, in a 2006 article published in the Harvard Human Rights Journal, Professor David Weissbrodt of the University of Minnesota Law School and Amy Bergquist (then a law student) condemn the practice of extraordinary rendition on several grounds, including that the practice lacks judicial involvement and rendered individuals do not have right to counsel:

Extraordinary rendition implicitly violates Article 14 [of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights] because . . . in the first instance, [detainees] are not allowed to come before courts and tribunals. . . .[T]he most relevant and fundamental [interest] is the right to be informed promptly of the charge against the individual. It is unclear whether authorities actually charge individuals subject to extraordinary rendition with crimes, and, if so, whether authorities provide them with the other procedural guarantees established in Article 14. At the very least, those guarantees are not present prior to their transfer, and detainees are frequently denied access to counsel. . . .

Finally, Human Rights Watch demanded a complete cessation of all renditions during the Bush administration and urged other countries to withdraw support for the program (see this blog entry).

Rebutting the Liberal Pushback
Despite the broad opposition to CIA rendition, liberal defenders of Obama have labored to revise history by portraying liberal opposition to rendition as related only to the torture and the secreting of individuals.

Scott Horton, a Professor at Columbia Law School, wrote a column in Harper's Magazine, which argues that the L.A. Times "got punked." Horton contends that the fuss over the Bush policies only centered around "extraordinary renditions" (as distinct from the good-old fashioned renditions). Although some of Horton's prior work on the subject focuses on torture and disappearances, he makes the general claim that:

A central feature of [Bush's] program was rendition to torture, namely that the prisoner was turned over to cooperating foreign governments with the full understanding that those governments would apply techniques that even the Bush Administration considers to be torture. This practice is a felony under current U.S. law, but was made a centerpiece of Bush counterterrorism policy. [Editor's Note: The Bush admininstration denied doing this.]

Glenn Greenwald, one of my favorite bloggers, similarly distorts the scope of liberal opposition to rendition:

[T]he objections to the Bush "extraordinary rendition" program were that "rendered" individuals were abducted and then either (a) sent to countries where they would likely be tortured and/or (b) disappeared into secret U.S. camps ("black sites") or sent to Guantanamo and accorded no legal process of any kind. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Obama will continue any of that. . . .

And over on Washington Monthly, Hilzoy contends that because Obama has ordered interrogators to comply with laws that prohibit torture and has ordered the CIA to close its prisons, rendition in the Obama administration will not violate the law or present the same problems that angered liberals during the Bush administration.

Hilzoy also argues that absent torture and indefinite detention, the CIA's removal of individuals becomes synonymous with extradition. This patently false assertion has floated around the web. Unlike the CIA's version of rendition, extradition contains the procedural protections, like judicial oversight, that liberals demanded Bush utilize, but which they now say are unnecessary.

Individuals who are extradited are turned over for very discrete purposes: to stand trial or to serve a sentence for a conviction already obtained. The subject must be turned over to a state actor. And a judge can typically veto the decision to extradite and must conclude that "probable cause" exists to try the person for the alleged crime. None of these factors attach to the CIA's program of rendition (extraordinary or otherwise). [Editor's Note: Interpol has a great webpage that summarizes the typical conditions of extradition. And a Brookings essay also distinguishes the two practices.]

Conclusion
Liberals condemned rendition during the Bush administration because it lacked judicial oversight, did not afford individuals access to counsel, and because it often subjected persons to torture and longterm detention. Because Obama has ordered governmental interrogators not to engage in torture and has ordered the CIA to close its longterm detention centers, liberals now say that rendition does not raise any problems. Apparently, snatching people without a court order, not giving them a lawyer, and then placing them in a remote country were never too much of a problem after all.

Admittedly, liberal opposition to rendition became most intense during the Bush administration because of the torture issue, but human rights activists condemned other aspects of the program as well. Perhaps they now believe they overreached in their criticism, but that's very different than having not taken the position in the first place.

Update: The term "liberals" does not = everyone on the planet who identifies politically as a liberal -- just in case you thought it did.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

Elevating Form Over Substance: Liberals Now Argue that They Oppose the Label of Bush's Program, Not the Substance

Major Flip-Flop by Human Rights Watch: Organization Waiting for Obama to Develop Kinder, Gentler Rendition Program

"Extraordinary Rendition" Remains Under Obama Administration