On Mass Dementia
I guess it's been a slow news week for some on the left side of the blogosphere. They're still arguing the merits of the Feingold resolution.
Several bloggers are trying to push a grassroots effort to support what is undeniably an opportunistic political stunt. Most are along the lines of "call your congressfolk and tell them to change their minds" variety. This fellow over at Huffington Post gives talking points for his readers to use when they encounter resistance during the calls. He provides the faithful with ammunition made from carefully selected snippets of FISA, and taking the Attorney General out of context. Using that along with the absurd "I think X is illegal (even though I haven't the foggiest idea of what X really is), Bush said he did X, therefore Bush explicitly confessed to a crime" meme is typical enough for the left's discussion on the topic - once you've made such leaps, it can't be much farther to "forget the judge - get a rope".
Why Greenwald's arguments stood out as the best example of many displaying the left's irresponsibility stems from his bio:
For the past 10 years, Glenn Greenwald was a litigator in New York with a practice focused on, among other areas, constitutional law and First Amendment challenges.
And on his personal blog:
For the past 10 years, I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges (including some of the highest-profile free speech cases over the past few years), civil rights cases, and corporate and security fraud matters.
OK, OK, ignore the differences. We'll consider them "targeted" resumes. But I find it strange that a lawyer with constitutional law and civil rights experience would advocate the pre-judgement by legislative decree of a person's guilt. I wonder if Mr. Greenwald would have tolerated such behavior directed at any of his clients?
But in stark contrast to Issue 2, all the facts necessary to know the answer to Issue 1 are already disclosed, are publicly available, and have been admitted by the Administration. Therefore, while an investigation into Issue 2 is imperative, all of the facts relevant to the question of whether the President broke the law (the only issue raised by the Feingold Resolution) are already known, and for that reason it is illogical to claim that an investigation is needed before that question can be answered. Put simply, we don't know the scope and extent of the President's illegal eavesdropping, but we do know that the eavesdropping he ordered was illegal.
What if that were a prosecutor arguing this? Would Greenwald allow his client to be convicted on an incomplete set of facts?
I woke up this morning at 4:30 AM on March 24, 2006 in the United States of America. Not in Moscow in the 1950s. Although the over-the-top rhetoric from many Democrats in congress suggesting that the legality and criminality of the President's actions are a foregone conclusion, they know (except for Feingold, apparenty) that in practice they can't officially take that step. Doing so would be antithetical to our system of justice, effectively shredding Article III of the constitution. After all, why do we need courts when congress can declare guilt with a resolution?
And that's what Feingold asks for. And he's certainly fortunate to have minions such as those we find in the blogoshere. "Investigation? We don't need no stinking investigation! He's guilty! Get a rope!" is the cry from Mr. Greenwald - and he gets a couple of hundred comments mostly giving variations of "You da man!".
I really want to know. Does hate really make them this blind?
Update: Link fixed.
