GG is a a left-wing hack and professional sock-puppet. Why are you even discussing him?

What Light Hearted said. Ditto.

Well, I think that the crazies have their place. I don't expect a lot of people to write letters to their Congressmen with long-winded arguments about the merits of some legislation. I expect them to write and call and say "DON'T SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION BECAUSE IT IS UNAMERICAN!!!!!!" and for the opposite crazies to say "SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION OR THE TERRORISTS WIN!!!!!!"

How much do you think they listen to the reasonable calls from constituents? They probably just think "Well, this guy sounds calm and reasonable, surely I can ultimately justify to voters like him whatever position I eventually take."

Would you patiently argue against a government policy that said not only could non-citizens be legitimately tortured by American personnel, but so could their children and parents? How about if the Bush Doctrine included not merely torture but cannibalism. "Continue to hold your tongue and we'll boil it."?

Yes. We are a society of laws, not temper tantrums. You most certainly would patiently and rationally advocate against bad policies if you wanted to effectively have an influence on the policies through lawful channels. Flame-wars, hissy-fits and blatant sock-puppetry won't change minds, and therefore won't change policy.

Yet another basic principle they usually try to teach in elementary school. But perhaps Greenwald was home-schooled by hyenas, or whatever sub-species of humanity likes boiled tongue. The Scottish, perhaps?

GG was a lot better before his blog was picked up by Salon, and before his book deals. In fact his older blogspot posts sounded a lot like OK's in terms of tone (though not substance). It seems like he has found success in shrill-ery (sp?), unfortunately.

Lighthearted,

If your point is that there are some positions so absurd that no one could agree with them, then that is of course true. But I wouldn't blog about those issues; if the argument is absurd, there is no need to blog on it and I wouldn't waste my time with it. I only blog about issues when there is a colorable and interesting set of legal issues on which people in good faith disagree. The question is what to do in that setting, and I think the answer is to take the arguments seriously and get to the merits of them. In a world of diverse opinion, you can either engage on the merits or try to bully the other side; I guess I'm not a fan of bullies.

I agree with you on the merits of this one, Orin, but not all arguments deserve to be taken seriously in every forum. Otherwise, we would end up debating "creation science" every year in biology class.

Prof. Kerr: Your view above is eminently reasonable, and I would not argue against it. But it does, unless I'm missing something, simply come down to your drawing the "reasonable" line differently than Greenwald (who, BTW, I do not know, do not read, and therefore of course do not support).

I only blog about issues when there is a colorable and interesting set of legal issues on which people in good faith disagree.

And therein lies the problem. You argue as if the arguments are put forth in good faith, which is a good policy because it concentrates on the important issues. Thus, we end up with a reasoned legal analysis on the merits.

On the other hand, Glen is correct (despite being an ass) that in some of those issues (the OLC memos authored by Yoo), the legal arguments being debated were put forth in bad faith based on intellectually dishonest interpretations of existing statutory law. Where he errs is in reading your assumption of good faith as a concession of good faith.

Perhaps you could help to bridge the gap (despite his apparent unworthiness) by making more explicit the fact that your arguments assume good faith solely for the purpose of argument and that you take no position on the underlying motivations? Certainly I know that (being a long time reader) but it might be lost on outsiders.

Rod Blaine,

"GGW, as a good liberal"

GGW is not a good liberal. Orin Kerr is a good liberal. Gleen is either a poor liberal or a run-of-the-mill leftist, by historical standards.

OK,

"I only blog about issues when there is a colorable and interesting set of legal issues on which people in good faith disagree."

And Greenwald claims that no people of good faith do. Those who disagree (with him) are a priori not in good faith. It's an argument more tribal than legal, although he does provide a pragmatic fig leaf for his tribe mates and/or those who agree with him on the issue(s) and are perhaps seduced by the promise of the approach he advocates.

it does, unless I'm missing something, simply come down to your drawing the "reasonable" line differently than Greenwald

This seems right to me. Isn't this particular criticism by Greenwald based on the fact that he draws the line elsewhere than Kerr? He does not think that there is a "colorable and interesting set of legal issues on which people in good faith disagree," so he thinks Kerr is wrong to discuss them seriously.

Having said all that, and this the second time I've tried to raise this in a Greenwald thread, Greenwald did make a point on the merits that I have not seek Prof. Kerr address:

Greenwald, criticizing Kerr's criticism of an opinion by Judge Taylor (? I don't even recall which case any more), pointed out that the decision was on summary judgment. The government had been given an opportunity to rebut facts to show there were genuine issues, thus requiring denial of summary judgment. The government didn't rebut fscts, so the judge ruled in the plaintiff's favor.

I think my recollection of the procedural posture is correct. In any event, Prof. Kerr called it one of the worst reasoned decisions he had ever seen (a fairly serious charge, I think). Greenwald responded that Kerr failed to understand the procedural issues.

Prof. Kerr, I agree Greenwald is way off base in his name-calling approach to argument, but on this point, do you have a reply?

Greenwald appears to be saying we should follow him because he is passionate. What he fails to do is tell us why we should care a whit about his emotions.

Kerr tells us we should accept or reject an idea and lays out the reasons why. He appears to put much less value on his own emotions than does Greenwald.

Tribal denunciations against the actions of the other tribe don't require logic and rational or linear arguments.

My tribe is good; the other is evil and that's the end of the story.

Even if the story is 25,000+ more words.

[BTW, read Greenwald's excuses defending Putin's invasion of Georgia]

Game, set, match...

I agree 100% with Orin.

All the lefties screaming "Bush is Hitler!" didn't do a darn thing to actually stop any of the policies that concerned them or the President from getting reelected. Most Americans rolled their eyes at such complaints because it was pretty obvious to them that no matter how authoritarian some of the President's action were, they were nowhere near as extreme as Hitler's.

However, those who argued their positions in a more moderate tone in Washington and in the courts found significantly more success.

""Backed by Yoo, Bush argues that whatever he says is the law of the land, and anyone who disagrees with him will be arrested and held indefinitely,""

Tell me how outrage and name-calling would be anymore effective at stopping this than reasonable, logical responses based on the Constitution's text?

There is a reasonable response to white supremacism that is more than cries of "Evil racist!" There is a reasonable response to the idea that the Earth is flat that is something more than "Luddite!" If you don't respond to these ideas in a calm, intelligent manner, then you leave open the possibility that people are going to see it as nothing more than two emotional people fighting over an issue and over several generations' worth of time, that is very dangerous.

For what it's worth, I read you Orin and hardly ever read Glenn and I independently came to the conclusion that you are an "apologist". An intelligent, thoughtful apologist, but still and apologist.

"A polite, civil debate about those ideas treats them as having a level of credibility that they don't deserve, as though they were something reasonable people could disagree about. In fact, one of the hallmarks of social progress since the 1950's has been that white supremacy is now an idea that it's considered completely unacceptable to express in polite company. "

I'm not sure how long lasting this will be if people are ignorant of WHY those ideas are bad.

It would be helpful for critics of the Bush Administration to denounce soundly and repeatedly the far more egregious actions by FDR during WWII. (Wilson, Lincoln et al.; but especially Roosevelt).

As a sometimes quasi-defender (yep, I qualified that as much as I could) of this Administration, I find it difficult to take at face value the purple-raged denunciations from people who think FDR was our greatest president.

He who denounces "A" should really denounce "A-to-the-tenth".

Admittedly, I'm being unfair; but not entirely.

Trad and Anon has it right (I'm the commenter whom GG was quoting, incidentally). What GG is trying to do is not necessarily convince the undecided, but to persuade those on his side that this is like white supremacy or Holocaust denial. He sees assumptions of good faith as not merely mistaken but dangerous, for the same reason that biologists worry about demands to "teaching the controversy"--there's always a temptation to assume the truth has to lie somewhere in the middle when people disagree.

I think GG's quest is a hopeless one, however--there's just no way to establish strong constitutional norms of executive constraint at this point. I think the problem is too deep, too structural--at the cultural and academic level, there's no cost (and many benefits) to expounding false but convenient constitutional constructions; at the institutional level, there's similarly very little cost to overreaching. And unpunished overreaching creates precedent such that there stops *being* any truth of the matter in certain constitutional domains, at which point it really is pure normative argument.

Ah, well. The torch of constitutionalism has passed to other nations; hopefully they'll have better luck with it.

trad an anon,

I think the most charitable way of construing Greenwald is that he sees Bush's torture policies as something like Holocaust denial or white supremacy: intellectually meritless and morally evil. A polite, civil debate about those ideas treats them as having a level of credibility that they don't deserve, as though they were something reasonable people could disagree about.

Yes, I understand that. Certainly there are people who take arguing the merits of Holocaust denial or white supremacy (or, for that matter, creationism, Jews-run-the-world fantasies, 9/11 "truth" conspiracies, or any number of other things) as not only a waste of time but actually counterproductive, in that people start to think that no one would bother expending so much effort combating an idea "if there weren't really something in it."

That said, this is not what ordinary people mean by "apology." The late Stephen Jay Gould spent an entire book taking apart a few centuries' worth of theories of racial superiority, and yet no one seems to remember him as an "apologist" for white supremacy. I've never seen Deborah Lipstadt, the historian David Irving unsuccessfully sued for libel when she ripped his "scholarship" apart, called an "apologist" for Holocaust denial. Nor have the many folks who demonstrated in the last few years, inter alia, that steel does melt been called "apologists" for the Truthers.

If all Greenwald meant was that dignifying the Bush Administration's line with a response more reasoned than "Vile scum, begone!" was too good for it, he ought to have come up with a different word.

What GG is trying to do is not necessarily convince the undecided, but to persuade those on his side that this is like white supremacy or Holocaust denial.

Right, but the new FISA act just clearly isn't in the same league as Holocaust denial. Maybe it's a bad law. But it's not deeply inhumane. And I don't even think Greenwald buys into his own position. He always links to Lederman on Balkinization, and Lederman isn't some deranged zany; he writes, very civilly and politely, about what he doesn't like about FISA or what have you. So really, it would seem that Greenwald's position isn't that you can't talk politely about these matters one way or another, but simply that you can't agree with the Bush Administration.

I'm generally sympathetic to GG on various privacy / liberty / executive power issues, but he's a polemicist and therefore sometimes is a bit over the top. Just part of the job description.

I don't even think Greenwald buys into his own position. He always links to Lederman on Balkinization, and Lederman isn't some deranged zany; he writes, very civilly and politely, about what he doesn't like about FISA or what have you. So really, it would seem that Greenwald's position isn't that you can't talk politely about these matters one way or another, but simply that you can't agree with the Bush Administration.

Nice try, but the even more obvious conclusion is that Greenwald knows that there is room for reasoned debate here, but just doesn't care. Then we get to his motive for not caring.

And being generally suspicious of shrill blowhards, I am inclined to find Greenwald "guilty" of the specific intent crime of self-aggrandizement through attention-grabbing outrageousness. He's basically cut from the same cloth as such reasonable social commentators as Howard Stern and Jerry Springer -- the latter at least, being an attorney with a J.D. from a tier-1 school, former Bobby Kennedy aide and mayor of a large city, also knows exactly why he does it the way he does, just like Greenwald.

The best way to handle Greenwald is to ignore the guy...

Orin,

I like mild discourse that weighs specific, opposing arguments against certain general and vital principles and then determines the sound position.

I think we all like that.

But there's a lesson to draw from Greenwald. It's not that some topics or arguments are beneath calm and logical refutation. It's that a response to some arguments cannot stop at a calm, logical refutation. A truly abhorrent policy deserves a chilly, reasoned refutation and a rhetorical — but still thoughtful — attempt to place that policy beyond the bounds of decency. If in tone and content, you determine that routine torture is, on balance, a hypothetically defensible but wrong and imprudent course of action, have you really said enough?

It might then be your responsibility, through persuasion, to place torture in a context that arouses outrage in your audience. Are you completing a puzzle and satisfying certain logical burdens, then moving on — or are you defending ideals without which country and constitution will die?

To defend Greenwald, I would say that reasoned discussion is necessary to impassioned defense, but impassioned defense is sometimes necessary to liberty.

Orin,

Construed in a certain way, Greenwald might be right that you legitimated barbarous policies. It is surely possible that when credible people argue in measured tones about the desirability of policies, instead of simply treating them as taboo, they make it more likely that those policies be adopted (largely by "normalizing" them). That said, (a) where's Greenwald's evidence? and (b) there's a pretty gaping lacuna here: by engaging in reasoned argument you might legitimate barbarous policies therefore there are some policies you should simply declare beyond the pale.

Zippypinhead,

Coming from someone who's volubly defending the use of reasoned argument against putatively outrageous claims, this is either brilliant self-parody or pretty absurd:

Greenwald is continuing to spew against you mainly because he's getting a reaction. His position is not only indefensible, it's positively bizarre, at least for somebody who calls himself a grownup...If everyone would just ignore Greenwald's flame, that would be the best punishment.

Coming from someone who's volubly defending the use of reasoned argument against putatively outrageous claims, this is either brilliant self-parody or pretty absurd.

I'd love to say the former, but clearly the latter is correct. I'm a pinhead, remember? [and you thought I chose this particular pseudonym just to be anonymous, eh?]

Or perhaps another option is correct: maybe it was a forceful attempt to suggest that Professor Kerr should stop doing this interminable tit-for-tat dance with Greenwald, without saying things I really think, like "Orin, you're sounding AWFULLY thin-skinned for somebody who knowingly made himself a public figure on several levels, including but not limited to a widely-read blog."

Bugs Bunny realized very quickly that reasoned debate with the Tazmanian Devil didn't accomplish his goals, either... (tho I am not sure I can picture Orin ever using Bugs' type of self-help remedies... too bad, it would be a Youtube hit).

Professor,

I still haven't heard you justify your comments you made regarding the procedural issues in the Taylor decision. I think it would be great to responsed to the argument. Why was Judge Taylor's decision so bad?

Hmmm... sounds like Mr. G. really likes getting indignant, and thus views anyone who criticizes a policy without getting indignant as an apologist for it. In short, you must share his emotional state or you must be a bad person. A touch of narcissism, perhaps?

I always found the best response to people like that is parody. They're quite ill-equipped to deal with it, and it excites amusing reactions.

Perhaps Glen Greenwald and JBG are one in the same person, since they employ similar tactics. Has anyone ever seen them together?

Dang, I'm changing my vote. Dave N wins the thread!

Dave N,

"Perhaps Glen Greenwald and JBG are one in the same person, since they employ similar tactics. Has anyone ever seen them together?"

I haven't seen them together, but has anyone seen JBG on these premises at all since Election Day?

Was he an Axelrod plant after all? Axelrod?

Dave N,

Perhaps Glen Greenwald and JBG are one in the same person, since they employ similar tactics. Has anyone ever seen them together?

I've more than once defended jbg, and have indeed been accused here of being his sock puppet.* Now that you've pulled the curtain back on jbg's status as just another of GG's multiple online identities, there's no point continuing this charade.

I AM GLENN GREENWALD!!


(*Oddly, I've also been called a neo-con on left-leaning sites more often than I can count. In fact, on some Alan Dershowitz Middle East threads at Huffington Post, I've been accused of being Dershowitz's sock puppet. So maybe the real answer is that Alan Dershowitz is Glenn Greenwald.)

LM,

Funny, I never thought you were JBG's sockpuppet--though I am convinced he employed them. The reason I never felt that is that you and I can disagree without being obnoxious and disagreeable--and it was always my impression that JBG enjoys being obnoxious and disagreeable.

I long ago concluded JBG + Scote = 1. And seeing either on a thread lately usually causes me to immediately hit the "back" button and not bother reading further. JBG/Sco seemed to have an uncanny ability to ruin dialogue, and way too often seemed to run in a pack.

Hey, I wonder if one of the more enlightened co-bloggers on VC finally banned JBG? Darn, stuff like that could even make me think prior restraints on speech may not be all bad...

I suspect Greenwald and JBG aren't related. That's nearly as improbable as Greenwald being Lindgren's evil, schizophrenic twin. Besides, JBG has a longer attention span than Greenwald. Although if OK is the Conspirator who banned JBG, that might explain Greenwald's out-of-left-field attack on him?

If VC wanted to put a crimp in sockpuppetry here, all they'd need to do is publish the IP address of each "guest" that adds a comment.

David Warner,

I enjoy vigorous debate. I have engaged in vigorous debate with some of the more liberal posters here. Most, like Mark Field, to use a good example, are stalwart in their beliefs but do not treat the opposing view with utter contempt. I enjoy discussions with posters like that.

JBG, not so much.

Hi all!
http://gibbaz.net/345/ http://gibbaz.net/1196/ http://gibbaz.net/809/ http://gibbaz.net/564/ http://gibbaz.net/1166/ http://gibbaz.net/45/ http://gibbaz.net/965/ http://gibbaz.net/924/ http://gibbaz.net/552/ http://gibbaz.net/1686/ http://gibbaz.net/664/ http://gibbaz.net/258/ http://gibbaz.net/1551/ http://gibbaz.net/335/ http://gibbaz.net/370/ http://gibbaz.net/1548/ http://gibbaz.net/38/ http://gibbaz.net/64/ http://gibbaz.net/1201/ http://gibbaz.net/1355/ http://gibbaz.net/105/ http://gibbaz.net/1936/ http://gibbaz.net/608/ http://gibbaz.net/1587/ http://gibbaz.net/627/ http://gibbaz.net/887/ http://gibbaz.net/1439/ http://gibbaz.net/1112/ http://gibbaz.net/1749/ http://gibbaz.net/1124/ http://gibbaz.net/1354/ http://gibbaz.net/19/ http://gibbaz.net/508/ http://gibbaz.net/1862/ http://gibbaz.net/110/ http://gibbaz.net/245/ http://gibbaz.net/280/ http://gibbaz.net/1532/ http://gibbaz.net/1231/ http://gibbaz.net/241/ http://gibbaz.net/457/ http://gibbaz.net/1164/ http://gibbaz.net/1279/ http://gibbaz.net/1245/ http://gibbaz.net/571/ http://gibbaz.net/10/ http://gibbaz.net/897/ http://gibbaz.net/1054/ http://gibbaz.net/595/ http://gibbaz.net/1221/ http://gibbaz.net/1721/ http://gibbaz.net/1611/ http://gibbaz.net/667/ http://gibbaz.net/261/ http://gibbaz.net/871/ http://gibbaz.net/471/ http://gibbaz.net/21/ http://gibbaz.net/1239/ http://gibbaz.net/1784/ http://gibbaz.net/58/ http://gibbaz.net/351/ http://gibbaz.net/1465/ http://gibbaz.net/1070/ http://gibbaz.net/1116/ http://gibbaz.net/178/ http://gibbaz.net/1322/ http://gibbaz.net/1469/ http://gibbaz.net/804/ http://gibbaz.net/729/ http://gibbaz.net/802/ http://gibbaz.net/46/ http://gibbaz.net/1530/ http://gibbaz.net/1700/ http://gibbaz.net/890/ http://gibbaz.net/745/ http://gibbaz.net/1635/ http://gibbaz.net/142/ http://gibbaz.net/1937/ http://gibbaz.net/937/ http://gibbaz.net/1400/ http://gibbaz.net/1781/ http://gibbaz.net/566/ http://gibbaz.net/1119/ http://gibbaz.net/1840/ http://gibbaz.net/1916/ http://gibbaz.net/622/ http://gibbaz.net/1630/ http://gibbaz.net/1285/ http://gibbaz.net/195/ http://gibbaz.net/1453/ http://gibbaz.net/1125/ http://gibbaz.net/1497/ http://gibbaz.net/993/ http://gibbaz.net/275/ http://gibbaz.net/666/ http://gibbaz.net/1021/ http://gibbaz.net/1227/ http://gibbaz.net/791/ http://gibbaz.net/191/ http://gibbaz.net/273/ http://gibbaz.net/298/ http://gibbaz.net/1287/ http://gibbaz.net/1057/ http://gibbaz.net/1172/ http://gibbaz.net/1290/ http://gibbaz.net/246/ http://gibbaz.net/1567/ http://gibbaz.net/443/ http://gibbaz.net/1604/ http://gibbaz.net/1143/ http://gibbaz.net/818/ http://gibbaz.net/342/ http://gibbaz.net/6/ http://gibbaz.net/265/ http://gibbaz.net/210/ http://gibbaz.net/944/ http://gibbaz.net/1939/ http://gibbaz.net/1456/ http://gibbaz.net/613/ http://gibbaz.net/1102/ http://gibbaz.net/279/ http://gibbaz.net/500/ http://gibbaz.net/376/ http://gibbaz.net/1516/ http://gibbaz.net/1/ http://gibbaz.net/1908/ http://gibbaz.net/805/ http://gibbaz.net/1845/ http://gibbaz.net/1513/ http://gibbaz.net/1246/ http://gibbaz.net/1096/ http://gibbaz.net/1267/ http://gibbaz.net/1905/ http://gibbaz.net/1170/ http://gibbaz.net/1025/ http://gibbaz.net/1500/ http://gibbaz.net/870/ http://gibbaz.net/545/ http://gibbaz.net/1071/ http://gibbaz.net/478/ http://gibbaz.net/1277/ http://gibbaz.net/630/ http://gibbaz.net/452/ http://gibbaz.net/775/ http://gibbaz.net/1401/ http://gibbaz.net/1275/ http://gibbaz.net/892/ http://gibbaz.net/806/ http://gibbaz.net/1395/ http://gibbaz.net/1796/ http://gibbaz.net/1717/ http://gibbaz.net/1214/ http://gibbaz.net/1647/ http://gibbaz.net/1493/ http://gibbaz.net/704/ http://gibbaz.net/303/ http://gibbaz.net/952/ http://gibbaz.net/1566/ http://gibbaz.net/1678/ http://gibbaz.net/953/ http://gibbaz.net/22/ http://gibbaz.net/1060/ http://gibbaz.net/496/ http://gibbaz.net/1903/ http://gibbaz.net/1158/ http://gibbaz.net/1394/ http://gibbaz.net/432/ http://gibbaz.net/1145/ http://gibbaz.net/183/ http://gibbaz.net/1884/ http://gibbaz.net/328/ http://gibbaz.net/977/ http://gibbaz.net/1183/ http://gibbaz.net/713/ http://gibbaz.net/1175/ http://gibbaz.net/1760/ http://gibbaz.net/109/ http://gibbaz.net/243/ http://gibbaz.net/614/ http://gibbaz.net/612/ http://gibbaz.net/518/ http://gibbaz.net/1724/ http://gibbaz.net/1806/ http://gibbaz.net/1741/ http://gibbaz.net/835/ http://gibbaz.net/33/ http://gibbaz.net/1503/ http://gibbaz.net/1436/ http://gibbaz.net/927/ http://gibbaz.net/1537/ http://gibbaz.net/938/ http://gibbaz.net/844/ http://gibbaz.net/1041/ http://gibbaz.net/1373/ http://gibbaz.net/1571/ http://gibbaz.net/165/ http://gibbaz.net/391/ http://gibbaz.net/1891/ http://gibbaz.net/850/ http://gibbaz.net/54/ http://gibbaz.net/752/ http://gibbaz.net/838/ http://gibbaz.net/1080/ http://gibbaz.net/1598/ http://gibbaz.net/852/ http://gibbaz.net/1485/ http://gibbaz.net/1804/ http://gibbaz.net/1775/ http://gibbaz.net/1383/ http://gibbaz.net/777/ http://gibbaz.net/1316/ http://gibbaz.net/605/ http://gibbaz.net/1181/ http://gibbaz.net/1981/ http://gibbaz.net/202/ http://gibbaz.net/1674/ http://gibbaz.net/1492/ http://gibbaz.net/810/ http://gibbaz.net/1842/ http://gibbaz.net/1139/ http://gibbaz.net/743/ http://gibbaz.net/4/ http://gibbaz.net/1853/ http://gibbaz.net/1429/ http://gibbaz.net/737/ http://gibbaz.net/1747/ http://gibbaz.net/997/ http://gibbaz.net/646/ http://gibbaz.net/413/ http://gibbaz.net/1161/ http://gibbaz.net/181/ http://gibbaz.net/1701/ http://gibbaz.net/1421/ http://gibbaz.net/2000/ http://gibbaz.net/883/ http://gibbaz.net/1639/ http://gibbaz.net/974/ http://gibbaz.net/733/ http://gibbaz.net/1260/ http://gibbaz.net/104/ http://gibbaz.net/129/ http://gibbaz.net/511/ http://gibbaz.net/1927/ http://gibbaz.net/340/ http://gibbaz.net/688/ http://gibbaz.net/588/ http://gibbaz.net/296/ http://gibbaz.net/139/ http://gibbaz.net/433/ http://gibbaz.net/1766/ http://gibbaz.net/1302/ http://gibbaz.net/1315/ http://gibbaz.net/1681/ http://gibbaz.net/459/ http://gibbaz.net/1077/ http://gibbaz.net/190/ http://gibbaz.net/772/ http://gibbaz.net/648/ http://gibbaz.net/270/ http://gibbaz.net/50/ http://gibbaz.net/1593/ http://gibbaz.net/1032/ http://gibbaz.net/720/ http://gibbaz.net/1097/ http://gibbaz.net/716/ http://gibbaz.net/753/ http://gibbaz.net/1523/ http://gibbaz.net/799/ http://gibbaz.net/770/ http://gibbaz.net/519/ http://gibbaz.net/929/ http://gibbaz.net/970/ http://gibbaz.net/603/ http://gibbaz.net/1825/ http://gibbaz.net/934/ http://gibbaz.net/305/ http://gibbaz.net/1636/ http://gibbaz.net/1931/ http://gibbaz.net/497/ http://gibbaz.net/1751/ http://gibbaz.net/1844/ http://gibbaz.net/1074/ http://gibbaz.net/1218/ http://gibbaz.net/321/ http://gibbaz.net/1205/ http://gibbaz.net/1190/ http://gibbaz.net/1210/ http://gibbaz.net/1758/ http://gibbaz.net/1295/ http://gibbaz.net/1830/ http://gibbaz.net/920/ http://gibbaz.net/1791/ http://gibbaz.net/24/ http://gibbaz.net/746/ http://gibbaz.net/1653/ http://gibbaz.net/1831/ http://gibbaz.net/140/ http://gibbaz.net/60/ http://gibbaz.net/1837/ http://gibbaz.net/98/ http://gibbaz.net/259/ http://gibbaz.net/1126/ http://gibbaz.net/893/ http://gibbaz.net/163/ http://gibbaz.net/1660/ http://gibbaz.net/923/ http://gibbaz.net/1595/ http://gibbaz.net/307/ http://gibbaz.net/1859/ http://gibbaz.net/1885/ http://gibbaz.net/169/ http://gibbaz.net/1211/ http://gibbaz.net/1031/ http://gibbaz.net/691/ http://gibbaz.net/1762/ http://gibbaz.net/539/ http://gibbaz.net/234/ http://gibbaz.net/1546/ http://gibbaz.net/1517/ http://gibbaz.net/1634/ http://gibbaz.net/1178/ http://gibbaz.net/656/ http://gibbaz.net/771/ http://gibbaz.net/529/ http://gibbaz.net/1960/ http://gibbaz.net/35/ http://gibbaz.net/936/ http://gibbaz.net/1422/ http://gibbaz.net/649/ http://gibbaz.net/1596/ http://gibbaz.net/880/ http://gibbaz.net/428/ http://gibbaz.net/1848/ http://gibbaz.net/276/ http://gibbaz.net/1261/ http://gibbaz.net/1684/ http://gibbaz.net/617/ http://gibbaz.net/1559/ http://gibbaz.net/1783/ http://gibbaz.net/1338/ http://gibbaz.net/812/ http://gibbaz.net/81/ http://gibbaz.net/1310/ http://gibbaz.net/727/ http://gibbaz.net/189/ http://gibbaz.net/1770/ http://gibbaz.net/1739/ http://gibbaz.net/634/ http://gibbaz.net/308/ http://gibbaz.net/120/ http://gibbaz.net/1247/ http://gibbaz.net/1864/ http://gibbaz.net/186/ http://gibbaz.net/1809/ http://gibbaz.net/1850/ http://gibbaz.net/1286/ http://gibbaz.net/873/ http://gibbaz.net/1495/ http://gibbaz.net/235/ http://gibbaz.net/472/ http://gibbaz.net/1802/ http://gibbaz.net/1968/ http://gibbaz.net/1204/ http://gibbaz.net/782/ http://gibbaz.net/1599/ http://gibbaz.net/1480/ http://gibbaz.net/922/ http://gibbaz.net/1965/ http://gibbaz.net/315/ http://gibbaz.net/247/ http://gibbaz.net/886/ http://gibbaz.net/1364/ http://gibbaz.net/1767/ http://gibbaz.net/1108/ http://gibbaz.net/714/ http://gibbaz.net/754/ http://gibbaz.net/147/ http://gibbaz.net/1186/ http://gibbaz.net/1940/ http://gibbaz.net/1180/ http://gibbaz.net/1038/ http://gibbaz.net/1975/ http://gibbaz.net/43/ http://gibbaz.net/7/ http://gibbaz.net/520/ http://gibbaz.net/1136/ http://gibbaz.net/1238/ http://gibbaz.net/994/ http://gibbaz.net/536/ http://gibbaz.net/1274/ http://gibbaz.net/483/ http://gibbaz.net/981/ http://gibbaz.net/1305/ http://gibbaz.net/1059/ http://gibbaz.net/823/ http://gibbaz.net/773/ http://gibbaz.net/1563/ http://gibbaz.net/1555/ http://gibbaz.net/1877/ http://gibbaz.net/972/ http://gibbaz.net/1473/ http://gibbaz.net/144/ http://gibbaz.net/1326/ http://gibbaz.net/1590/ http://gibbaz.net/1509/ http://gibbaz.net/521/ http://gibbaz.net/82/ http://gibbaz.net/116/ http://gibbaz.net/1273/ http://gibbaz.net/1695/ http://gibbaz.net/1944/ http://gibbaz.net/1658/ http://gibbaz.net/465/ http://gibbaz.net/957/ http://gibbaz.net/1165/ http://gibbaz.net/1920/ http://gibbaz.net/1923/ http://gibbaz.net/768/ http://gibbaz.net/1212/ http://gibbaz.net/561/ http://gibbaz.net/1339/ http://gibbaz.net/1130/ http://gibbaz.net/316/ http://gibbaz.net/1938/ http://gibbaz.net/1232/ http://gibbaz.net/1533/ http://gibbaz.net/1278/ http://gibbaz.net/759/ http://gibbaz.net/1307/ http://gibbaz.net/1826/ http://gibbaz.net/384/ http://gibbaz.net/1328/ http://gibbaz.net/964/ http://gibbaz.net/62/ http://gibbaz.net/592/ http://gibbaz.net/477/ http://gibbaz.net/1249/ http://gibbaz.net/675/ http://gibbaz.net/541/ http://gibbaz.net/1051/ http://gibbaz.net/1788/ http://gibbaz.net/1091/ http://gibbaz.net/987/ http://gibbaz.net/1155/ http://gibbaz.net/1824/ http://gibbaz.net/1890/ http://gibbaz.net/1241/ http://gibbaz.net/787/ http://gibbaz.net/20/ http://gibbaz.net/999/ http://gibbaz.net/358/ http://gibbaz.net/353/ http://gibbaz.net/447/ http://gibbaz.net/1236/ http://gibbaz.net/242/ http://gibbaz.net/253/ http://gibbaz.net/381/ http://gibbaz.net/1152/ http://gibbaz.net/684/ http://gibbaz.net/1591/ http://gibbaz.net/1380/ http://gibbaz.net/1790/ http://gibbaz.net/121/ http://gibbaz.net/1691/ http://gibbaz.net/942/ http://gibbaz.net/1522/ http://gibbaz.net/641/ http://gibbaz.net/1704/ http://gibbaz.net/1638/ http://gibbaz.net/932/ http://gibbaz.net/906/ http://gibbaz.net/1782/ http://gibbaz.net/1489/ http://gibbaz.net/1623/ http://gibbaz.net/1270/ http://gibbaz.net/730/ http://gibbaz.net/1616/ http://gibbaz.net/238/ http://gibbaz.net/1405/ http://gibbaz.net/618/ http://gibbaz.net/80/ http://gibbaz.net/657/ http://gibbaz.net/151/ http://gibbaz.net/1026/ http://gibbaz.net/642/ http://gibbaz.net/1103/ http://gibbaz.net/1525/ http://gibbaz.net/1614/ http://gibbaz.net/1597/ http://gibbaz.net/347/ http://gibbaz.net/1432/ http://gibbaz.net/1622/ http://gibbaz.net/1269/ http://gibbaz.net/476/ http://gibbaz.net/341/ http://gibbaz.net/1033/ http://gibbaz.net/876/ http://gibbaz.net/1925/ http://gibbaz.net/931/ http://gibbaz.net/1773/ http://gibbaz.net/696/ http://gibbaz.net/643/ http://gibbaz.net/517/ http://gibbaz.net/1132/ http://gibbaz.net/798/ http://gibbaz.net/209/ http://gibbaz.net/1101/ http://gibbaz.net/461/ http://gibbaz.net/1064/ http://gibbaz.net/1564/ http://gibbaz.net/960/ http://gibbaz.net/1956/ http://gibbaz.net/816/ http://gibbaz.net/1069/ http://gibbaz.net/387/ http://gibbaz.net/322/ http://gibbaz.net/1631/ http://gibbaz.net/1423/ http://gibbaz.net/1281/ http://gibbaz.net/534/ http://gibbaz.net/337/ http://gibbaz.net/93/ http://gibbaz.net/429/ http://gibbaz.net/1176/ http://gibbaz.net/359/ http://gibbaz.net/855/ http://gibbaz.net/676/ http://gibbaz.net/1740/ http://gibbaz.net/792/ http://gibbaz.net/1012/ http://gibbaz.net/400/ http://gibbaz.net/550/ http://gibbaz.net/360/ http://gibbaz.net/1613/ http://gibbaz.net/1565/ http://gibbaz.net/1351/ http://gibbaz.net/907/ http://gibbaz.net/1828/ http://gibbaz.net/839/ http://gibbaz.net/1075/ http://gibbaz.net/1229/ http://gibbaz.net/1527/ http://gibbaz.net/1216/ http://gibbaz.net/983/ http://gibbaz.net/73/ http://gibbaz.net/1725/ http://gibbaz.net/1448/ http://gibbaz.net/1141/ http://gibbaz.net/975/ http://gibbaz.net/686/ http://gibbaz.net/1588/ http://gibbaz.net/1391/ http://gibbaz.net/1531/ http://gibbaz.net/602/ http://gibbaz.net/828/ http://gibbaz.net/1795/ http://gibbaz.net/1106/ http://gibbaz.net/489/ http://gibbaz.net/1406/ http://gibbaz.net/107/ http://gibbaz.net/899/ http://gibbaz.net/1869/ http://gibbaz.net/1250/ http://gibbaz.net/967/ http://gibbaz.net/1886/ http://gibbaz.net/325/ http://gibbaz.net/145/ http://gibbaz.net/44/ http://gibbaz.net/1728/ http://gibbaz.net/1505/ http://gibbaz.net/319/ http://gibbaz.net/980/ http://gibbaz.net/271/ http://gibbaz.net/1556/ http://gibbaz.net/638/ http://gibbaz.net/1390/ http://gibbaz.net/168/ http://gibbaz.net/616/ http://gibbaz.net/1303/ http://gibbaz.net/1902/ http://gibbaz.net/103/ http://gibbaz.net/549/ http://gibbaz.net/1549/ http://gibbaz.net/917/ http://gibbaz.net/542/ http://gibbaz.net/1320/ http://gibbaz.net/1404/ http://gibbaz.net/356/ http://gibbaz.net/1345/ http://gibbaz.net/1807/ http://gibbaz.net/1852/ http://gibbaz.net/402/ http://gibbaz.net/293/ http://gibbaz.net/1510/ http://gibbaz.net/1958/ http://gibbaz.net/1873/ http://gibbaz.net/1296/ http://gibbaz.net/681/ http://gibbaz.net/256/ http://gibbaz.net/1254/ http://gibbaz.net/1650/ http://gibbaz.net/1494/ http://gibbaz.net/431/ http://gibbaz.net/1959/ http://gibbaz.net/623/ http://gibbaz.net/702/ http://gibbaz.net/895/ http://gibbaz.net/1361/ http://gibbaz.net/346/ http://gibbaz.net/362/ http://gibbaz.net/475/ http://gibbaz.net/526/ http://gibbaz.net/262/ http://gibbaz.net/425/ http://gibbaz.net/677/ http://gibbaz.net/821/ http://gibbaz.net/1387/ http://gibbaz.net/1445/ http://gibbaz.net/1569/ http://gibbaz.net/781/ http://gibbaz.net/1991/ http://gibbaz.net/136/ http://gibbaz.net/1107/ http://gibbaz.net/1929/ http://gibbaz.net/811/ http://gibbaz.net/1365/ http://gibbaz.net/408/ http://gibbaz.net/1813/ http://gibbaz.net/1440/ http://gibbaz.net/1872/ http://gibbaz.net/1793/ http://gibbaz.net/95/ http://gibbaz.net/146/ http://gibbaz.net/1742/ http://gibbaz.net/918/ http://gibbaz.net/689/ http://gibbaz.net/141/ http://gibbaz.net/834/ http://gibbaz.net/372/ http://gibbaz.net/991/ http://gibbaz.net/525/ http://gibbaz.net/1858/ http://gibbaz.net/156/ http://gibbaz.net/554/ http://gibbaz.net/840/ http://gibbaz.net/1449/ http://gibbaz.net/1499/ http://gibbaz.net/941/ http://gibbaz.net/1765/ http://gibbaz.net/1871/ http://gibbaz.net/1589/ http://gibbaz.net/154/ http://gibbaz.net/1058/ http://gibbaz.net/1083/ http://gibbaz.net/1600/ http://gibbaz.net/973/ http://gibbaz.net/658/ http://gibbaz.net/1835/ http://gibbaz.net/1711/ http://gibbaz.net/1618/ http://gibbaz.net/1955/ http://gibbaz.net/719/ http://gibbaz.net/230/ http://gibbaz.net/1377/ http://gibbaz.net/1911/ http://gibbaz.net/1811/ http://gibbaz.net/1470/ http://gibbaz.net/1969/ http://gibbaz.net/1620/ http://gibbaz.net/911/ http://gibbaz.net/1154/ http://gibbaz.net/1388/ http://gibbaz.net/317/ http://gibbaz.net/196/ http://gibbaz.net/1860/ http://gibbaz.net/547/ http://gibbaz.net/481/ http://gibbaz.net/1663/ http://gibbaz.net/436/ http://gibbaz.net/1752/ http://gibbaz.net/1375/ http://gibbaz.net/589/ http://gibbaz.net/1697/ http://gibbaz.net/868/ http://gibbaz.net/982/ http://gibbaz.net/1972/ http://gibbaz.net/1084/ http://gibbaz.net/1149/ http://gibbaz.net/732/ http://gibbaz.net/1402/ http://gibbaz.net/1498/ http://gibbaz.net/1455/ http://gibbaz.net/1785/ http://gibbaz.net/469/ http://gibbaz.net/453/ http://gibbaz.net/1633/ http://gibbaz.net/721/ http://gibbaz.net/1438/ http://gibbaz.net/1629/ http://gibbaz.net/182/ http://gibbaz.net/1447/ http://gibbaz.net/1062/ http://gibbaz.net/1452/ http://gibbaz.net/1984/ http://gibbaz.net/966/ http://gibbaz.net/739/ http://gibbaz.net/1815/ http://gibbaz.net/1099/ http://gibbaz.net/1264/ http://gibbaz.net/586/ http://gibbaz.net/1949/ http://gibbaz.net/52/ http://gibbaz.net/37/ http://gibbaz.net/535/ http://gibbaz.net/795/ http://gibbaz.net/336/ http://gibbaz.net/76/ http://gibbaz.net/18/ http://gibbaz.net/580/ http://gibbaz.net/1363/ http://gibbaz.net/859/ http://gibbaz.net/1954/ http://gibbaz.net/1755/ http://gibbaz.net/1195/ http://gibbaz.net/912/ http://gibbaz.net/1983/ http://gibbaz.net/490/ http://gibbaz.net/1115/ http://gibbaz.net/1478/ http://gibbaz.net/585/ http://gibbaz.net/324/ http://gibbaz.net/48/ http://gibbaz.net/1979/ http://gibbaz.net/172/ http://gibbaz.net/1123/ http://gibbaz.net/1482/ http://gibbaz.net/339/ http://gibbaz.net/382/ http://gibbaz.net/1284/ http://gibbaz.net/127/ http://gibbaz.net/1248/ http://gibbaz.net/1912/ http://gibbaz.net/1318/ http://gibbaz.net/9/ http://gibbaz.net/1919/ http://gibbaz.net/1252/ http://gibbaz.net/1554/ http://gibbaz.net/1219/ http://gibbaz.net/349/ http://gibbaz.net/375/ http://gibbaz.net/1748/ http://gibbaz.net/1408/ http://gibbaz.net/1713/ http://gibbaz.net/875/ http://gibbaz.net/1671/ http://gibbaz.net/851/ http://gibbaz.net/904/ http://gibbaz.net/115/ http://gibbaz.net/1652/ http://gibbaz.net/166/ http://gibbaz.net/1708/ http://gibbaz.net/846/ http://gibbaz.net/53/ http://gibbaz.net/731/ http://gibbaz.net/1581/ http://gibbaz.net/1156/ http://gibbaz.net/1109/ http://gibbaz.net/440/ http://gibbaz.net/180/ http://gibbaz.net/1327/ http://gibbaz.net/1572/ http://gibbaz.net/87/ http://gibbaz.net/1934/ http://gibbaz.net/88/ http://gibbaz.net/1829/ http://gibbaz.net/1584/ http://gibbaz.net/1963/ http://gibbaz.net/1693/ http://gibbaz.net/909/ http://gibbaz.net/570/ http://gibbaz.net/709/ http://gibbaz.net/1486/ http://gibbaz.net/99/ http://gibbaz.net/1561/ http://gibbaz.net/323/ http://gibbaz.net/411/ http://gibbaz.net/794/ http://gibbaz.net/1487/ http://gibbaz.net/1988/ http://gibbaz.net/659/ http://gibbaz.net/1319/ http://gibbaz.net/57/ http://gibbaz.net/1135/ http://gibbaz.net/590/ http://gibbaz.net/36/ http://gibbaz.net/1926/ http://gibbaz.net/1987/ http://gibbaz.net/1553/ http://gibbaz.net/1910/ http://gibbaz.net/1901/ http://gibbaz.net/1297/ http://gibbaz.net/1812/ http://gibbaz.net/1519/ http://gibbaz.net/1854/ http://gibbaz.net/412/ http://gibbaz.net/1683/ http://gibbaz.net/466/ http://gibbaz.net/1081/ http://gibbaz.net/947/ http://gibbaz.net/1867/ http://gibbaz.net/532/ http://gibbaz.net/493/ http://gibbaz.net/1268/ http://gibbaz.net/1133/ http://gibbaz.net/394/ http://gibbaz.net/137/ http://gibbaz.net/1541/ http://gibbaz.net/1167/ http://gibbaz.net/12/ http://gibbaz.net/250/ http://gibbaz.net/173/ http://gibbaz.net/1743/ http://gibbaz.net/1369/ http://gibbaz.net/1637/ http://gibbaz.net/149/ http://gibbaz.net/819/ http://gibbaz.net/1560/ http://gibbaz.net/1088/ http://gibbaz.net/1677/ http://gibbaz.net/1745/ http://gibbaz.net/1484/ http://gibbaz.net/8/ http://gibbaz.net/1899/ http://gibbaz.net/188/ http://gibbaz.net/1667/ http://gibbaz.net/379/ http://gibbaz.net/1941/ http://gibbaz.net/1299/ http://gibbaz.net/1352/ http://gibbaz.net/482/ http://gibbaz.net/403/ http://gibbaz.net/715/ http://gibbaz.net/484/ http://gibbaz.net/1746/ http://gibbaz.net/1706/ http://gibbaz.net/780/ http://gibbaz.net/1948/ http://gibbaz.net/690/ http://gibbaz.net/94/ http://gibbaz.net/1253/ http://gibbaz.net/1771/ http://gibbaz.net/861/ http://gibbaz.net/1786/ http://gibbaz.net/1147/ http://gibbaz.net/468/ http://gibbaz.net/177/ http://gibbaz.net/1538/ http://gibbaz.net/1333/ http://gibbaz.net/74/ http://gibbaz.net/647/ http://gibbaz.net/1265/ http://gibbaz.net/576/ http://gibbaz.net/837/ http://gibbaz.net/89/ http://gibbaz.net/853/ http://gibbaz.net/533/ http://gibbaz.net/1028/ http://gibbaz.net/1657/ http://gibbaz.net/505/ http://gibbaz.net/1376/ http://gibbaz.net/130/ http://gibbaz.net/367/ http://gibbaz.net/1386/ http://gibbaz.net/1714/ http://gibbaz.net/1550/ http://gibbaz.net/267/ http://gibbaz.net/1142/ http://gibbaz.net/1114/ http://gibbaz.net/1514/ http://gibbaz.net/894/ http://gibbaz.net/1935/ http://gibbaz.net/1291/ http://gibbaz.net/1787/ http://gibbaz.net/1994/ http://gibbaz.net/1255/ http://gibbaz.net/1722/ http://gibbaz.net/842/ http://gibbaz.net/56/ http://gibbaz.net/292/ http://gibbaz.net/224/ http://gibbaz.net/1068/ http://gibbaz.net/848/ http://gibbaz.net/874/ http://gibbaz.net/1039/ http://gibbaz.net/462/ http://gibbaz.net/72/ http://gibbaz.net/502/ http://gibbaz.net/651/ http://gibbaz.net/726/ http://gibbaz.net/698/ http://gibbaz.net/1689/ http://gibbaz.net/963/ http://gibbaz.net/1009/ http://gibbaz.net/1194/ http://gibbaz.net/212/ http://gibbaz.net/1504/ http://gibbaz.net/1001/ http://gibbaz.net/854/ http://gibbaz.net/693/ http://gibbaz.net/735/ http://gibbaz.net/170/ http://gibbaz.net/1005/ http://gibbaz.net/1417/ http://gibbaz.net/1184/ http://gibbaz.net/683/ http://gibbaz.net/131/ http://gibbaz.net/207/ http://gibbaz.net/888/ http://gibbaz.net/1336/ http://gibbaz.net/416/ http://gibbaz.net/158/ http://gibbaz.net/269/ http://gibbaz.net/1491/ http://gibbaz.net/598/ http://gibbaz.net/593/ http://gibbaz.net/333/ http://gibbaz.net/1696/ http://gibbaz.net/439/ http://gibbaz.net/1930/ http://gibbaz.net/1732/ http://gibbaz.net/42/ http://gibbaz.net/1627/ http://gibbaz.net/955/ http://gibbaz.net/1331/ http://gibbaz.net/632/ http://gibbaz.net/350/ http://gibbaz.net/860/ http://gibbaz.net/301/ http://gibbaz.net/1665/ http://gibbaz.net/857/ http://gibbaz.net/989/ http://gibbaz.net/1437/ http://gibbaz.net/1389/ http://gibbaz.net/946/ http://gibbaz.net/1346/ http://gibbaz.net/1578/ http://gibbaz.net/1977/ http://gibbaz.net/1734/ http://gibbaz.net/1772/ http://gibbaz.net/1670/ http://gibbaz.net/1849/ http://gibbaz.net/961/ http://gibbaz.net/800/ http://gibbaz.net/1385/ http://gibbaz.net/223/ http://gibbaz.net/1007/ http://gibbaz.net/1672/ http://gibbaz.net/843/ http://gibbaz.net/1798/ http://gibbaz.net/956/ http://gibbaz.net/831/ http://gibbaz.net/665/ http://gibbaz.net/1308/ http://gibbaz.net/1808/ http://gibbaz.net/124/ http://gibbaz.net/1576/ http://gibbaz.net/327/ http://gibbaz.net/79/ http://gibbaz.net/990/ http://gibbaz.net/939/ http://gibbaz.net/334/ http://gibbaz.net/1177/ http://gibbaz.net/385/ http://gibbaz.net/1769/ http://gibbaz.net/767/ http://gibbaz.net/1082/ http://gibbaz.net/164/ http://gibbaz.net/153/ http://gibbaz.net/1368/ http://gibbaz.net/1475/ http://gibbaz.net/992/ http://gibbaz.net/1601/ http://gibbaz.net/1010/ http://gibbaz.net/1888/ http://gibbaz.net/824/ http://gibbaz.net/1140/ http://gibbaz.net/820/ http://gibbaz.net/1776/ http://gibbaz.net/1006/ http://gibbaz.net/670/ http://gibbaz.net/255/ http://gibbaz.net/1989/ http://gibbaz.net/1612/ http://gibbaz.net/1410/ http://gibbaz.net/1843/ http://gibbaz.net/1619/ http://gibbaz.net/1266/ http://gibbaz.net/204/ http://gibbaz.net/560/ http://gibbaz.net/406/
G'night

GG exists for my amusement.

Kind of like two bums fighting.

And, more and more, like you for even having a discussion where you use the words "Glenn Greenwald", "argument", and "credibility" in the same post.

Next time use the words "marmalade", "hubcap", and "goiter". I guarantee you those three words have a stronger link than your three words.

Oh, and civility ain't got nothing to do with it.

OK,

"It is true that I presume good faith for the sake of argument, even when I suspect bad faith is afoot (and that taking the argument seriously isn't a sign that I think the argument was made in good faith) That is true whether the argument I am responding to was made by the Bush Administration or Glenn Greenwald."

That's going to leave a mark.

tsotha

Two questions 1) do you believe the Bush administration has tortured citizens and trampled on constitutional rights.

If you answer that question no, then I'll bid you a good night, since I imagine you have some "Palin 2012" signs to be painting.

If yes, would you care to list some posts by Mr. Kerr clearly denouncing this criminal activity?

Greenwalds argument is extremely conservative in an important respect. He is saying that society should NOT pay certain views the courtesy of rationally considering them, but should instead immediately reject them with revulsion.

But I'm confident that he would not argue that the same technique should be applied to, say, gay marriage. Any attempt to dismiss that with an appeal to emotion would not get far with GG. And on what rational basis does he make that distinction? None. His entire world view is based on feeling, not on thinking.

If everyone would just ignore Greenwald's flame, that would be the best punishment.

I confess, I've never understood how this mans opinions became a topic for debate on the web. Even if you agree with the gist of what he says, there are other people saying it better. That is, with greater brevity and less histrionics. But some people seem to like that emotionally overwrought style. How else would Andrew Sullivan stay in business?

wyswyg,

I take it you're assertion is that water-boarding isn't torture, not that no one was water-boarded.

Two questions 1) do you believe the Bush administration has tortured citizens and trampled on constitutional rights.


If yes, would you care to list some posts by Mr. Kerr clearly denouncing this criminal activity?

So now the guy's got to denounce everything wrong going on in the world? Okay, charitable interpretation time - now the guy's got to denounce everything wrong going on in the world with some connection to the law? I thought Stevens's recent dissent in the Millionaire's Amendment case deserved some eviscerating criticism. I'm almost positive that Professor Kerr would agree. He didn't bother denouncing it though - that is, he didn't comment on it. So I guess that makes him an apologist for Stevens's bizarre reasoning* in his dissent?

* Stevens says that, since the Supreme Court's allowed to limit how long counsel can talk in oral argument to a mere 40 minutes, and limit the length of counsel's briefs it ought to be constitutional to put caps on campaign spending and prevent candidates from "flooding the airwaves with slogans and sound-bites." Because that's analogous. Really makes you wonder if the guy is still in mens sana. But now I'm getting Greenwaldian.

So in the interest of trying to find some common ground between OK and GG, let me point out again what GG once said about comments I left at his place:

The industrious Jukeboxgrad, however, has written two additional superb Comments … I highly recommend these thorough and well-argued responses from Jukeboxgrad.

And here's what OK once said about comments I left at VC:

I thought your comments were terrific. Very strong stuff.

In both cases, the subject matter was FISA. So does this prove that GG and OK are in agreement about FISA? I guess not, but maybe it's still some kind of a hopeful indicator.

And has anyone else commented at both VC and GG and drawn compliments from the host at both places? I don't know, but if it happened, they might have been my sockpuppet.

Greenwald:
The industrious Jukeboxgrad, however, has written two additional superb Comments … I highly recommend these thorough and well-argued responses from Jukeboxgrad.

It looks like they give each other a reach around too.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

And as a bonus, they can make an argument in less than 25,000 words.

If I were exposed as a sock puppet, I wouln't expect to be take seriously anymore. If I were attacked by one, I doubt that I would bother to notice. But people still notice him, as if what he thinks is a matter of some importance. It is not.

Jukeboxgrad writes a wonderful Brief in Support of Jukeboxgrad. I assume we'll see JBG following tradition and citing to it on other threads down the road as support for what a wonderful, insightful person JBG happens to be.


And sometimes I think there's a secret plot by Kos to destroy all reasonable discourse on the blogsphere, but that's probably an overstatement. Just the English language portion of the blogsphere is at risk.

I think Greenwald has it exactly backwards, though. If you actually want to persuade folks who haven't made up their mind already on ideological grounds — that is, the crowd that is open to persuasion - invective won't cut it.

But what if the goal isn't to persuade the masses?

I suspect that Greewald's goal is to isolate political opponents. The quickiest way to isolate one's political opponents is to attack anyone who gives those opponents an honest, unbiased assessment of those opponents. Once opponents are isolated...they can be crushed.

Err...make that:

I suspect that Greewald's goal is to isolate political opponents. The quickiest way to isolate one's political opponents is to attack anyone who gives those opponents an honest, unbiased assessment of those opponents' positions. Once opponents are isolated...they can be crushed.

orin's latest postscript is laughable: greenwald points out exactly the problem with orin's authoritarian nastiness in regard to al-marri, and orin replies with snide vacuousness. greenwald is exactly right. orin is well-mannered but his manners only contribute to his legitimizing bush's legal thuggery.

Jim O'Sullivan:

If I were exposed as a sock puppet, I wouln't expect to be take seriously anymore. If I were attacked by one, I doubt that I would bother to notice. But people still notice him, as if what he thinks is a matter of some importance. It is not.

As was pointed out on an earlier thread, there are better explanations for what happened than sock puppetry.

As was pointed out on an earlier thread, there are better explanations for what happened than sock puppetry.

However, those better explanations are much harder to make into frivolous ad hominems.

orin's post is obviously civil, and much more obviously unsubstantive.

["them" = Orin and JBG]

I was the one who observed a reach around in Greenwald's slimy pat on the back of JBG (no pun intended). My observation was intentional and consistent with the modus operandi of both Greenwald and JBG. At least I didn't accuse them of being apologists for - or practitioners of - criminal behavior, with which they routinely smear their political opponents. Both of these individuals routinely relieve themselves in the middle of the marketplace of ideas, making it more difficult for ideas to be discussed with reason and logic.

We'd be better off ignoring both of them and their obnoxious rhetoric.

winstontwo, you seem to like the bitch word in connection to Glenn Greenwald.

</MindlessSnark>

See what you sound like?

i don't hear any shrieking. all i hear is contempt, because greenwald raises substantive criticism of kerr's al-marri post, and kerr simply ducks whilst affecting an air of smug superiority.

kevin:

It looks like they give each other a reach around too.

If GG praising what I wrote is the equivalent of "a reach around," then what does it mean when OK praises what I wrote? Since they both did so.

Anyway, I look forward to your continued efforts to enhance civility.

-------------------------

kerr's:

support for what a wonderful, insightful person JBG happens to be

I wasn't quoting myself praising what I wrote. I was quoting OK and GG praising what I wrote. Then again, maybe you think they're my sockpuppets.

The eagle never lost so much time as when he submitted to learn of the crow.

I would have wished that your (apparently) final response to Glenn Greenwalt a few posts up the page would have permitted comments. I think you, ultimately, are the one being "dismissive" of the arguments made by GG in insisting he argues merely that "My arguments are a "transparent and ludicrous" straw man; I am ignorant; I am willfully distorting his views; I am just like John Yoo;, etc. (that's a third mention of myself and Yoo together, for those counting at home.)".

I think you unfairly dismiss his argument by insisting his posts boils down the invectives listed above . . .particularly in light of his assertion that these don't of themselves demonstrate you are an "apologist", but rather because you "supported" the positions he accuses you of. His three posts on this thread set forth the relevant material on the merits, but you seem content to argue the meta. Pleading that we read your posts re: Al Marri, without more, is inadequate.

Jukeboxgrad writes:
"I wasn't quoting myself praising what I wrote. I was quoting OK and GG praising what I wrote. Then again, maybe you think they're my sockpuppets."

No, I was just remembering how in the past on this blog you've been caught and called out for citing your own posts elsewhere as support for your arguments. Circular cites to yourself as persuasive authority may not be quite as bad as what Joe Biden's been caught doing a few times, but it sure doesn't enhance your credibility...

Incidentally Jokebox - if you marvel that people talk about your posting habits even when you're not immersed in the particular thread, has it ever occurred to you that maybe it's because you've not developed a very good reputation for yourself in general (please don't bother rebutting by re-posting the 2 favorable comments you received on your thoughts. How many thousand posts do you make in a year, anyway? How many thousand responses do you get taking issue with both your substantive views and the obnoxious way you sometimes express them? You betcha! [wink]).

WinstonTwo quotes Glenn Greenwald:

he has defended such policies -- not all of them, as I stated explicitly from the start, but many of the worst ones, including, as but one illustrative example, the Bush administration's reprehensible, ongoing detention of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, based on the broader theory that the President has the authority to order even U.S. citizens (and legal residents) on U.S. soil imprisoned as "enemy combatants" indefinitely without charging them with crimes and without having to prove them guilty in courts of law.

WinstonTwo asks:

True or false? If true, Greenwald's argument has merit

The answer, of course, is false. EMPHATICALLY false. I have never even suggested anything remotely like that. I believe the constitution plainly forbids the noncriminal detention of citizens and legal residents. See Ex Parte Milligan. That is one of the many reasons why Greenwald's argument has no merit: He needs to invent positions that he claims are mine in order to make his case. It's really quite shameful, but seems par for the course in his case.

The answer, of course, is false. EMPHATICALLY false. I have never even suggested anything remotely like that.

You're simply a liar. GG cited the post in which you argued just what he said you argued: http://volokh.com/posts/1181615410.shtml

As Cassandrus says there:

Doesn't this same logic apply really to any crime? Setting aside questions of magnitude, couldn't we replace the terrorists in this example with, say, a child rapist. In that case, the police wouldn't even have the opportunity to deport him. They would simply have to let a child rapist go free! Preposterous! Throw him in Gitmo! Your issue here isn't with Al-Marri, its with the fourth amendment, at least in cases where public safety is endangered.

Additionally, I think assuming the clear guilt of the suspects brackets a ridiculously salient issue. Of course if we assume guilt, the fourth amendment doesn't really stand up. No due process guarantees do--if only the guilty are prosecuted all they do is help the guilty escape their just punishment. But not everyone who is prosecuted is in fact guilty and that is why we safeguard civil liberties. To assume guilt is to dodge the meat of the issue.

[Deleted by OK. Civility may be an unclear concept, but I think the phrase "What a pathetic dishonest ass you are, Orin Kerr" counts as uncivil.]

You're simply a liar. GG cited the post in which you argued just what he said you argued: http://volokh.com/posts/1181615410.shtml

Yes, but Glenn Greenwald -- whose posts most resemble not JBG's, but Justin Raimondo's -- is actually the one lying, as Orin makes a clear distinction in that post between citizens and non-citizens. Glenn repeatedly ignores, lies, or dissembles about that point.