Is everything said in the title? Well, the title in both of these cases is the thesis, how the author feels about the decision, so yes, I think that says a lot.

You are not being entirely truthful, considering you know about the tiered system of justice and disagree with it, because you willfully omit it. Call that not being truthful, call that not showing the full picture, I simply don’t like it.

“What Greenwald chooses to write about is different than what I choose to write about.” I just saw that. Charming. Yes, Greenwald chooses to write about the whole picture.

Still, in your considered option, and as the arbiter of ‘the truth’, I should have written a 40 page legal brief on this despite the fact that what Greenwald choses to write about is simply different than what I chose to write about.I, apparently, have this obligation because, as you feel it necessary to point out, I am a lawyer. .

Ok. Of course, you’ll forgive me if I ask why Greenwald is permitted, in your learned assessment, to stop where he did? I mean, since the point he is making involves the terrorists who attacked a US Naval ship – and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the military tribunes prior to they were expanded by George Bush in a way that the Supreme Court found necessary to pare back (I suppose you want a court citation here, but sorry, I don’t feel like digging it up.) – why are not holding him responsible to tell the full story on his topic? Maybe it’s because he isn’t a lawyer? Of course, maybe he is and, like me, doesn’t know we have some higher obligation to go beyond our points when writing an article rather than a legal brief.
Again, if you want your criticism to be taken seriously, you’re going to have to think it out a whole lot better than this.
I’ll let you comment back and have the last word. I’ve been hanging out watching the football game so was available for this rather meaningless chat with you. But now, unfortunately, I have some work to do. So criticize away, comfortable in the notion that you shall have the last word.

“Justice Dept. makes the right decision on terrorist trials-GOP quivers with fear”

The title of Greenwald’s piece:

“Detainees to get the “state-always-wins” system of “justice”: Obama’s announcement to try 9/11 defendants would be commendable if it applied to all, rather than some, detainees.”

Hmmm, I wonder how they could disagree.

Where do you praise Obama? You praise the DOJ which is ultimately controlled by, under the authority of Obama. Do you not think that Obama is responsible for the actions of the DOJ? Especially major decisions such as this one?

Also, being “middle of the road” does not imply that you have no views, and it certainly does not imply that you have no views to challenge.

“Of course, you don’t neglect to praise Obama who has used the same or more extreme arguments than Bush when defending torture and secrecy in general”

Uh…try as I might, I can’t even find the name “Obama” in the post I wrote. You sure you read the right article?

Since you only appear capable of finding articles that are on the front page, you might test those searching skills of yours to find the piece I wrote immediately prior to this piece. That would be the one where even you would have trouble suggesting that I’m praising Obama.

“As you mention, I’m sure it’s no use trying to give you factual articles to challenge your views, but you know, mr. UngAr, some of us like the truth to get out there anyway.”

In one paragraph you accuse me of being ‘middle-of-the-road’ and ‘predictably milktoast ” and then suggest you are gracing me with your fact to ‘challenge my views’. Either I’m down the middle – which would imply I have no views- or I have views that require challenging. Feel free to pick one or the other but I’m not sure you get to have it both ways.

It’s always interesting when someone points out that their references represent ‘the truth’. Apparently, the truth is what Josh has to say or possibly Mr. Greenwald. As it happens, I agree with Greenwald (sorry for the Eric thing – I have a writer friend named Eric Greenwald and I got confused –or maybe it was a conspiracy.) But, as has been noted by another commenter, there was nothing I wrote that was inconsistent with Mr. Greenwald’s piece. It just happens to have been what you determined was ‘the truth’ and wished to use it to disagree with me, no matter how ‘off point’ your disagreement might have been.
Sorry – we have a pretty smart bunch of people who read and comment on this page and you’re going to have to do better than just attacking me foolishly. By the way, what was it that I said in this piece that was untrue???? I’m curious.

I’m not sure who you’re referring to by “Eric,” but I put up a link to an article by “Glenn Greenwald.”

Here is the key part of Greenwald’s post that you don’t make mention of:

“So what we have here is not an announcement that all terrorism suspects are entitled to real trials in a real American court. Instead, what we have is a multi-tiered justice system, where only certain individuals are entitled to real trials: namely, those whom the Government is convinced ahead of time it can convict. Others for whom conviction is less certain will be accorded lesser due process: put in military commissions, to which most leading Democrats vehemently objected when created under Bush. Presumably, others still — those who the Government believes cannot be convicted in either forum, will simply be held indefinitely with no charges, a power the administration recently announced it intends to preserve based on the same theories used by Bush/Cheney to claim that power.”

Of course, you don’t neglect to praise Obama who has used the same or more extreme arguments than Bush when defending torture and secrecy in general.

As you mention, I’m sure it’s no use trying to give you factual articles to challenge your views, but you know, mr. UngAr, some of us like the truth to get out there anyway.

Oh, and promoting my own website? In case you didn’t notice, I posted a link directly to the article, although I did post an excerpt from it on my own website. The only thing here that is promoting my website is my name. And why shouldn’t I promote my website? It is after all, truthful and complete. That is more than I can say about many others.