With Liberty and Justice for Some

Tonight I had the pleasure of braving the Foggy Bottom wind to see a panel discussion at George Washington University among Glenn Greenwald, ACLU national security expert (and NYU graduate) Ben Wizner, and James Klimaski, an attorney who represents military personnel and specializes in civil rights and police misconduct.

Greenwald was the star attraction and the panel was loosely disguised as something of a discussion about his new book, With Liberty and Justice for Some, but all three had an opportunity to rail against the corruption of our justice system.

Greenwald and Wizner were clearly on the same page regarding the rule of law in modern American society.  The rule of law can be tricky to define, but if we can accept that it broadly suggests a principle of   governance wherein all persons are accountable to and equal before the law.  The pair's key argument is that this principle, as defined, no longer exists in the United States.

Greenwald admits that the rule of law was always an imperfect aspirational principle but argues that it was, nevertheless, an anchor for establishing a legitimating sense of equality in our society.  Charting American politics from the pardon of President Nixon onward, Greenwald believes the rule of law has been perverted into a tool of coercion by political and economical elites:

Wizner started his narrative with 9/11 but has the same ultimate conclusion as Greenwald.  As a litigator for the ACLU, Wizner was more concerned that this erosion has impacted even the judiciary.  According to Wizner, judges maintain an illusion that the rule of law still exists in the war on terror through "doctrinal tricks" and "accountability shell games."  The end result is that elites are shielded from accountability before the law.

"For José Padilla, no punishment is enough.  For Donald Rumsfeld, any punishment is too much," he concluded.  "Which is as good a description of Glenn's book as I can think of."

Curiously, the third person at this panel discussion, James Klimaski, insisted that the rule of law was still alive.  Unfortunately for the poor attorney, his attempts to articulate his rationale were so poor that he concluded that the rule of law would still "make society work" until a revolution arose.  Then, of course, he remarked that Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party would well be the beginning of that anyway.

Greenwald retorted congressional deadlock and Occupy Wall Street are clear evidence that society is not working at the moment.  He noted that without the rule of law in place, citizens have no reason to expect institutions or the traditional legislative process to work for them.  Thus, movements like the Occupy Wall Street which present no articulable electoral demands are inevitable.

From my point of view, I couldn't help put think about the recent hubbub in D.C. about how the Occupy Washington protesters were "ruining" the sodding in McPherson Square.  Because obviously maintaining the dying grass in a public park in late fall is of equal importance to wide-scale social protest.

A similarly absurd sentiment came out of the mouth of one Los Angeles city councillor:

"They've made their statement. I agree with their statement, but it is time to move on. The trees are in the process of being impacted. The grass is being impacted. Other activities that we need to do on the lawns are being put on the back burner," said Councilman Bill Rosendahl.

It's worthwhile to note that agreeing with the sentiment behind Occupy Wall Street is not nearly the same thing as doing something about it.  Of course, arguably the problem in our society is that no one in government feels compelled to do anything at all...except resod some grass.