This week, March 8th, Jennifer Van Bergen (CounterPunch) became another one:
I was somewhat surprised to see both Glenn Greenwald and law professor Kevin Jon Heller make inaccurate statements about the charges just filed against Bradley Manning. In particular, the charge being discussed was "aiding the enemy."
Greenwald claims that article 104(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was "almost certainly the provision to be applied." It's true that the charge sheet doesn't specifically say that Manning is charged with violating the second clause of article 104, but it uses the language of that provision, so it NOT "almost certainly" the provision being applied; it is definitely the one being applied.
Glenn Greenwald is only a 'brilliant' legal 'mind' to those who don't know anything about the law. As a legal mind, he's about as proficient as Erma Bombeck would have been.
If you go back several years, you'll find a post at Rebecca's site you'll find a post where she caught Greenwald on Democracy Now and was excited when C.I. avised her to calm down. That's really about all that's been said about Greenwald publicly until this month by this community. C.I. has other things to do and generally just laughs at people like Greenwald. (What prompted C.I. to call Greenwald out finally was that Greenwald was getting the Bradley Manning issues wrong and that the 'great' mind was using an "international law" expert when the case was domestic and needed a military justice expert. Greenwald is not very intelligent.)
But it really is amazing how this idiot has been upheld as one of the country's best minds. Lawrence O'Donnell is someone I know. He is not someone I consider a friend. But watching his exchange earlier this year with Greenwald, I actually felt that, emotional though O'Donell was, he made stronger points than Greenwald. Greenwald's not intelligent. He's got a basic grasp (of the obvious) and little more.
Greenwald is part of the sexist 'legal' left who is glorified but doesn't have a clue. I'm thinking of another one who was disciplined by his university when C.I. made a point to ask the university president why the man in question was presenting himself as a legal expert on a topic he was neither trained in nor taught. Once C.I. raised that issue, it was quickly dealt with and that man no longer promotes himself as he used to in the past. Doing so again would result in the loss of his associate professorship.
But again we should be asking, why is C.I. the only one who catches that stuff? Maybe because others are too busy gobbling up the conventional wisdom that tells them what they want to hear instead of asking questions? Maybe because there are too many fan bois and not enough skeptics?
While Glenn Greenwald never knows what he's talking about, if you look at the history of the last seven years online, C.I.'s been right repeatedly. Yes, she does have legal training and, yes, she does have a firm on retainer. Yes, she does repeatedly explore legal issues with friends who are attorneys, judges and professors. That's obviously more work than Greenwald can handle. But whether it was telling you that the Ehren Watada couldn't face double jeopardy and be court martialed again, C.I. has repeatedly known what she's talking about. I can also name numerous veterans who've faced a legal issue in the last few years that would give a thank you to C.I. You bring up the issue with her and she'll end up citing a case you (and your attorney) probably hasn't heard of. It's that amazing memory she's forever had.
That's why when she says, "If you want to help, you should probably . . ." People should listen. Time and again, she's proven right. I really lament the fact that we have so few critical thinkers with logical skills on the left these days but am glad to know that one of the few we have is my best friend.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):