One of the less salutary undercurrents flowing out of the U.S. government’s classified information case against former AIPAC staffers is how haters of the pro-Israel lobby who otherwise might be spooked by a security establishment seeking closed courts and the criminalization of basic reporting techniques have been slow on the pickup.
With some honorable exceptions, you get the impression that ravaging the constitution is worth jailing anyone who once had "AIPAC" attached to their name.
One of those honorable exceptions has been Glenn Greenwald at Salon, who is almost unmatched in his disdain for the pro-Israel lobby, but who has written about the threats posed by the case.
He seems, however, unable to control himself in the case of Jane Harman, the California Jewish Democrat now mired in allegations that she considered intervening on behalf of the two former staffers, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.
Today he counts her among Democrats who "assented" to torture techniques.
Actually, her staunch opposition to torture may be the reason she’s been dragged into this mess.
Greenwald has argued in the past that Harman did not do enough to stop the program and he has weirdly conflated her support for eavesdropping with her opinions on torture.
Neither amounts to "assent."
He’s argued persuasively for keeping torture from becoming yet another "politics as usual" Washington debate.
He should heed his own counsel.
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald, below the jump, makes the fair point that he was addressing Republican claims about Democratic assent to torture. My apologies. This nullifies the whole post! Almost. I still think he’s too casual about throwing Harman into the mix; she might not have done enough, but at least someone was raising her voice.
