Does Glenn Greenwald Ever Tell The Truth?

Complete rubbish from Salon's Greenwald. If Salon had any consideration for its reputation, they wouldn't permit a disingenuous and ultimately deceitful hack like Greenwald to so routinely lie, particularly when addressing, in this case, a candid and extremely thoughtful Opinion Journal piece by Harvard's Harvey C. Mansfield.

The right's explicit and candid rejection of "the rule of law"

The Wall St. Journal online has today published a lengthy and truly astonishing article by Harvard Government Professor Harvey Mansfield, which expressly argues that the power of the President is greater than "the rule of law."

The article bears this headline: The Case for the Strong Executive -- Under some circumstances, the Rule of Law must yield to the need for Energy. And it is the most explicit argument I have seen yet for vesting in the President the power to override and ignore the rule of law in order to recieve(sic) the glories of what Mansfield calls "one-man rule."

You can read Greenwald's tripe, including his not surprising fixation on (a) Little Prince via link at top. I'll cut to the chase and just give you the Opinion Journal piece honestly. Greenwald neglects to mention that the obvious impetus for Mansfield's piece is the war in Iraq. Indirectly, he is mostly engendering intelligent discussion of the Constitution in and around the concept of War Powers and the interplay between the Executive and Legislative branches. Perhaps if Greenwald read anything other than The Little Prince and his own punishing-ly verbose work, he'd comprehend the item is expressly addressing the top issue in today's news - the Iraq Supplemental debate.

This is not the first time that a strong executive has been attacked and defended, and it will not be the last. Our Constitution, as long as it continues, will suffer this debate--I would say, give rise to it, preside over and encourage it. Though I want to defend the strong executive, I mainly intend to step back from that defense to show why the debate between the strong executive and its adversary, the rule of law, is necessary, good and--under the Constitution--never-ending.

In other circumstances I could see myself defending the rule of law. Americans are fortunate to have a Constitution that accommodates different circumstances.

The tactic of mis-characterizing enlightened argument with which you may disagree is fascistic, at best. Salon should be ashamed.

Comments

[DGP]

How is Greenwald being dishonest? Mansfield stresses the need for a strong leader. Greenwald finds the implications scary. Mansfield does not say that his reasoning is limited to funding Iraq in the manner the President wants and Greenwald apparently thinks his reasoning could be used in other situations. How is that dishonest?

[Zifnab]

"In other circumstances I could see myself defending the rule of law. Americans are fortunate to have a Constitution that accommodates different circumstances."

Shorter Mansfield: IOKIARDI

When is the rule of law, the rule of law, and when is it obsolete and rendered quaint? Why, when a Republican is in office, of course. Then everything from illegal arms sales in Iran to obstructing investigation of fellow politicos is merely an executive priviledge.

But wait for a Dem victory in '08 and behold how the "Unitary Executive" theory crumbles to dust. Democratic Presidents can't be allowed that sort of power, after all.

[Vetter]

Oh dear...racist/homophobe Knobby's comment is so hysterically hysterical I actually laughed my coffee outta my nose! Shall we even bother Fisking this boob? How's this for a start:
"everything from illegal arms sales in Iran (a liberal fantasy to smear R Reagan) to obstructing investigation of fellow politicos (laughable in the face of knobby's hero B Clinton's misconduct and an untenable and laughable demoncratic attempt to smear Gonzalez). Racist/homophobe knobby and his ilk are such fatueous liars it makes me wince...

[templar knight]

"Does Glenn Greenwald ever tell the truth?"

Uh, no.

[Hard Right]

Zif, the mentally deragnged moonbat is projecting the left's beliefs/behavior upon us Conservatives.

Zif claims it's ok with us when a Rep does something he feels is wrong, but vetter proceeds to show what massive hypocrites loons like Zif are. His kind defended and applauded Clinton's behavior and CINC actions to no end. Now that a Rep does anything remotely like Billy Bob did, it's an atrocity.

Hey Zif you have a typo- IOKIADDI-but WIARDI. All your posts prove this. You're too mentally ill to see it tho.

[Hard Right]

Glenn Greenwald, he's the idiot who tried to claim that only the right is guilty of hate speech, but when slapped upside the head with hatespeech from Dems pretended the examples didn't exist. Then, when unable to find examples from the right, changed the definition so just mean comments became hate speech. Pattreico severely handed him his ass. It was funny to see.

[Drew]

Isn't this Greenwald guy the same jerk that posted items on blogs under various contrived names praising himself? I think the practice is referred to as "sock-puppetry." I recall that one of his "defenses" was that someone else in his household may have been using his computer; in response, law professor Eugene Volokh dryly observed that perhaps "it had been done by a home burglar."

[jong]

Dan writes:

"The tactic of mis-characterizing enlightened argument with which you may disagree is fascistic, at best."

I mean, Dan, Templar, Hard Right, Bloodrage - you guys are all the pillars of enlightened argument and would never stoop to the fascist tactic of mis-characterizing the other side's position.

[sashal]

Harvey Mansfield is a senile, demented fuckwit. I pity his students at Harvard, or I would if I thought any students ever came into actual contact with him. I’m sure his TAs do all his ‘teaching.’

Glenn Greenwald was also very good on this today.

There is only one response to this nonsense, and it’s not hard, and when most people, even politically uninformed people hear it, they understand and agree with it.

No one, not even the President, is above the law.

Keep repeating it. Because the majority of the citizens in this country agree.

[Hard Right]

Bong, quit accusing of us of doing what your kind does. Now seek out a mental health professional for treatment.

Sashal, you have no business calling anyone a f--kwit after posting what you did.

[Vetter]

Ergo, Sasha, you think that B Clintonius should have been both impeached AND removed from office? Please, enlighten us with your circle jerk wisdom...

[BARRASSO]

The tactic of mis-characterizing enlightened argument with which you may disagree is fascistic, at best

good thing only about a quarter of the posts here do that, you are only one quarter fascistic.

Does this mean that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are both fascists? Which side of fascism are they both on?

[Vetter]

Only in BarHags world are Rush and MMoore aligned. MMoore straight out LIES, Rush plays back the absurdities and inanities of the very left BarHag so loves. There is no calculus betwixt the 2, but in the feeble, addled pate of BarHag they are one. Astounding.

[templar knight]

Thank you, Erika, nice to see you coming around to our way of thinking!

[Vetter]

ms Jong is the leader of what we now call the "sex negative" feminist...'Nuff said.

[jong]

Great stuff Wednesday, you must've been the terror of the playground back in third grade. Your talents are obviously wasted here.

How did that whole drug thing work out for Rush? I kinda lost track.

[charles]

is "wednesday" vetter or templar? just like to know for my edification

" you must've been the terror of the playground back in third grade"

still sore about getting your lunch money taken back in the day?

don't know how that drug thing worked out for rush, but it sure doesn't seem to be doing you any good

"I kinda lost track"

well they do say short term memory is the first thing to go

[badger]

"Greenwald neglects to mention that the obvious impetus for Mansfield's piece is the war in Iraq. Indirectly, he is mostly engendering intelligent discussion of the Constitution in and around the concept of War Powers and the interplay between the Executive and Legislative branches."

Maybe you'd like to clear up how a President's war powers apply to a situation where no war has been declared.

[Dan Riehl]

"Great stuff Wednesday, you must've been the terror of the playground back in third grade."

Welcome to my playground, biatch. Don't let my hobby horse get too far up your butt.

[Vetter]

Please refer to me ONLY as Wenesday from now on as our serial mental defect Jong or erica or, perhaps, Wednesday, likes to be called. Seriously, is this "biatch" stupider than even noted racist/homophobe Knobby? Zounds. The "depth" of the lib-pool sure be looking a tad shallow...

[owlbear1]

Boy I can't wait unil Hillary, Barack, or John get to use all those POTUS POWERS.

Less than 2 years now...

tick tock

Are Republicans really sure they want the "War on Terra" to go on past 2008?

[LOL]

http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/5760.html

it's true

[atheist]

In other circumstances I could see myself defending the rule of law. Americans are fortunate to have a Constitution that accommodates different circumstances.

The tactic of mis-characterizing enlightened argument with which you may disagree is fascistic, at best. Salon should be ashamed.

Greenwald isn't mis-characterizing Mansfield's argument. To say that the US constitution 'accomodates different circumstances' than the rule of law is where Mansfield is simply wrong.

Mansfield argues that in certain circumstances, the rule of law can, and should, be suspended. If you can 'decide' to suspend the rule of law whenever it becomes inconvenient, then obviously laws don't rule- the 'decider' rules in that situation. Yet, this is exactly what Mansfield is calling for. Mansfield's desired government is really the definition of a dictatorship or a fascist state. There's no way around it.

[atheist]

What, no italics? The first 2 paragraphs were from the original post.

[klyde]

Let me see if I have this right; Greenewald is dishonest because he responded to the piece published by Mansfield and not to the piece you wish had been published? The mendacity of your post is breathtaking Riehl.

[merlallen]

Yeah, he'll change his mind when a Dem is elected in '08. All of you people will start screaming rule of law like you did through Bill Clinton's two terms. Republican'ts don't care about the Constitution or the law as long as one of them is in office.

[merlallen]

Why don't you debate Greenfield Mr. Riehl? He'd clean your clock. He's way smarter and a lot better informed.

[Cleanser]

"The tactic of mis-characterizing enlightened argument with which you may disagree is fascistic, at best."

And misusing emotionally-loaded terms in an attempt to discredit those with whom you disagree is communistic - no, wait, it's despotic - no, wait, it's downright Satanic. That's right, Riehl is a Satanist. No, wait that's too grand - Riehl is just a pathetic scumbag demagogue, spraying out his ignorant bile, trying to be the next Coulter.

"fascistic" ? You think Greenwald is advocating that the government redirect the output of all industry for the government's use? that he's implying that the needs of the individual are inferior to the needs of the State ?

"Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

That's how Mussolini described fascism. Is that what you see in what Greenwald wrote ?

For fuck's sake, Riehl, are you really that stupid ??

[Cleanser]

So you deleting comments now Riehl? Fascim!!!!!

Here’s Robert Paxton’s definition of fascism (from Wiki):

1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions;
2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits;
3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts;
4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint;
5. fear of foreign `contamination.

If Masfield isn’t advocating #3, I’ll eat my hat.

[Miker]

You know, we had a king that was above the law 230 years ago. We got rid of him.

[Marco]

Glenn Greenwald, he's the idiot who tried to claim that only the right is guilty of hate speech, but when slapped upside the head with hatespeech from Dems pretended the examples didn't exist. Then, when unable to find examples from the right, changed the definition so just mean comments became hate speech. Pattreico severely handed him his ass. It was funny to see.

Posted by: Hard Right | Wednesday, May 02, 2007 at 04:13 PM

Um, if you were any more wrong, you'd go around the corner to being right. You might want to read Glenn who had several examples of that "no hate speech on the right" hate speech you claim he never found. Not that anyone with google can't find hateful tripe you claim only exists at Huffpo and Dailykos. I am sure you think Free Republic is all hugs and kisses, too, and that it was not frequented by a person who sent anthrax through the mail.

You guys project too much, are wrong way too much, and like Riehl, can't read.

Enjoy your day.

[craig adamson]

I don't know who has the dumber array of ass-kissing commenters, Riehl or Goldstein. Call it a draw.

[Fred Beloit]

Wow, a lot of new snotrags from Kos, or just the same old sockies. "They come runnin' as fast as they can, case every girl crazy 'bout a sharp-dressed man."

[ddeuts1]

Hahaha! You quote Mansfield as saying "the debate between the strong executive and its adversary, the rule of law, is necessary, good and--under the Constitution--never-ending" which I assume you agree with.

So you actually believe that the Constitution is set up so that the executive branch, strong or otherwise, is in an adversarial role with the rule of law?

Seig Heil Dan Riehl.

[HH]

What a touching concern for honesty Mr. Riehl exhibits. Of course, the "Commander Guy" is above honesty. When he says Rumsfeld has his complete confidence and fires him a few days later, that's not a lie. Lying is something the Commander Guy cannot do, because the Commander Guy is the BOSS, the Dear Leader, and nobody can insult the Commander Guy by saying he told a lie.

Professor Mansfield has done us a favor by pointing out that the "energy" of the Commander Guy is so valuable that it overrides every other consideration, and that includes simple honesty. So don't be too bothered about lies, Mr. Riehl. They don't mean anything to the Decider (the Commander Guy).

[bordo]

Mansfield's argument is nothing less than a call for a dictatorship in a time of crisis, which Dear Leader and his coterie of incompentents invoke daily as the war on terror. At base, he shines a bright light on the love of authoritarianism that infuses the current class of conservatives. They love to position themselves as patriots, but their deeds say so much more than their words. Once, we had leaders who told us we had nothing to fear but fear itself. Today, fear is the only thing they peddle and a fearful society will exchange some of its most cherished freedoms for the sense of being safe. This exploitation of fear --maybe it's genuine and maybe it's manufactured-- has led this generation of conservatives to turn its back on American ideals. Hopefully, the electoral wipeout the Republicans will suffer in 2008 will cast the most pernicious advocates of these anti-American ideas into the wilderness for a very long time.

[bordo]

Mansfield's argument is nothing less than a call for a dictatorship in a time of crisis, which Dear Leader and his coterie of incompentents invoke daily as the war on terror. At base, he shines a bright light on the love of authoritarianism that infuses the current class of conservatives. They love to position themselves as patriots, but their deeds say so much more than their words. Once, we had leaders who told us we had nothing to fear but fear itself. Today, fear is the only thing they peddle and a fearful society will exchange some of its most cherished freedoms for the sense of being safe. This exploitation of fear --maybe it's genuine and maybe it's manufactured-- has led this generation of conservatives to turn its back on American ideals. Hopefully, the electoral wipeout the Republicans will suffer in 2008 will cast the most pernicious advocates of these anti-American ideas into the wilderness for a very long time.

[Ed]

The president, like everyone else must follow the law. Setting precedent for the office as he has done leads us in absolutely the wrong direction.The message simply reinforces the grand American credo of "do what you want, just don't get caught at it".
Your arrogance,which assumes a front for your machismo, is surpassed only by Mr. Bush's dimwittedness.

[Jacquie]

Um...are you really dumb enough that you can't distinguish between "The Prince" and "The Little Prince"? Seriously?

[R.L.Page]

Cue inevitable response: "It was a joke, but you dumbass liberals are so humorless, you missed it ... "

Yeah, that's the ticket ... it was a joke ...

[bdr]

Yes, debate. Dare you.

[Dan Riehl]

"Why don't you debate Greenfield Mr. Riehl? He'd clean your clock. He's way smarter and a lot better informed."

Anytime. But you mean "Greenwald" right, my little informed lefty? Doh!

[Zoroastrian]

"enlightened argument?"

With what? A book burning?

[lieinveigleobfuscate]

Fascinating title, but you fail to ever actually point out the untruth. Did you forget the subject of your screed in mid-mouth-foam, or are you just a shoddy analyst?

Let's review:
You say he lied in the title. Then you call him a hack and a liar and say Salon should be ashamed (and if you've read the crap at Salon you know that they would never be ashamed of anything that generates web hits). Block quote, Greenwald is tripe and obsessed by The Prince (the little prince-conservative humor--how about the Emporer has No WMDs for a funny? What, you're not laughing?) and AH! He neglected to mention it's about Iraq! Um, Dan, you moron, it's not just about Iraq, IT'S ABOUT EXECUTIVE OVERREACH! Christ man! Mansfield's piece only mentions Iraq in the last paragraph!

Then you're back to ad hominem (he is verbose, but you can't write worth a crap so what you complaining about Bubba?), a big block quote, and then you call him a fascist.

And wow, that's considered illuminating thought hereabouts? If you cut out all the ad hominems you end with TWO SENTENCES OF THOUGHT! That's frakking pitiful Dan.

[LOL]

I see that Greenwald's a fascist for lying. But Dan, who wants to "purge leftists" from America is not a fascist. Furthermore, leftists want badly to surrender to outside enemies, but they are still fascists, Stalinist fascists even. However, the movement that wants to nuke millions of civilian populations is not fascist, it is democratic, Republican even.

[brent]

Mr. Riehl,

I have read your piece, Greenwald's piece and Mansfield's piece again now and I must say that yours is the only one that seems unclear to me. What exactly is your disagreement with Greenwald here? Mansfield is quite explicitly arguing that there is necessarily, constitutionally even, an adversarial relationship between presidential power and the rule of law in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are certainly not laid out by Mansfield as evidently as you seem to think they are but I fail to see what difference even that is supposed to make.

Greenwald is right. There is not a lot of ambiguity in Mansfield's argument and it clearly posits that there is an appropriate space for presidential authority that allows the executive to set aside the law when he, or maybe she someday soon, deems it necessary. What exactly is your beef with that?

[prozacula]

dan is riehl stupid.

he also says alot of completely inexcusable shit, and when he is called on it, claims *every time* that he was 'just joking'. Just like Savage or Limbaugh.

what a convenient out - 'just kidding'. maybe we would believe you if you were a)a comedian or b)funny in any way.

[Harry Tuttle]

Frango Regna.

Yes, that is a threat. And a promise.

[R.L.Page]

Be fair -- Mr. Riehl is every bit as funny as Michael Savage (nee Weiner.)

[Hard Right]

Ah yes Marco, crawls out from DUNG when his daddy Greenwald gets bitch slapped again.

Saw the examples Greenwald posted and they didn't meet the criteria. When that was pointed out to him he suddenly changed the criteria, like liberals usually do when they are losing. Go run home to your NAMBLA meeting, this site is for intelligent people. That means no leftards like you.