Glenn Greenwald does the honors. It is interesting how whenever Greenwald brings up the issue of why people like Toobin never call for jailing in cases of high-level sources leaking to high-level journalists (like Bob Woodward), Toobin dodges it by saying that is a different discussion without explaining how it is different. He really sank to new lows in this interview, which is quite a feat since he was pretty low in my estimation even before this.
Greenwald is perfectly correct in pointing out that supporters of the national security state have no compunction in changing their reasoning in an arbitrary way to arrive at their desired conclusion: that leaks that are officially unapproved to officially unapproved journalists are bad and must be punished.
I had never heard of Toobin until I read his book on the Simpson trial. In that book, he claims , based on examples of letters written by Simpson, that the latter is mentally deficient. Actually, Simpson is dyslexic, which is not a symptom of mental deficiency (Nelson Rockefeller and General George Patton were fairly severely dyslexic and Albert Einstein was mildly dyslexic for example).
As it turns out, psychologist Leonore Walker gave Simpson an IQ test on which he scored 127. That does not indicate mental deficiency. This is an example of Toobin’s slipshod research.
According to what I’ve read in other places, Simpson’s IQ is a little bit better than that of the Lesser Bush.
America will never regain its former glory while it incarcerates the truly intelligent and elects others to public office.
People who’ve taught college classes with football players among the students know that the stereotype of the dumb jock is not at all accurate. The US educational system, unfortunately, is much better at detecting athletic talent early than detecting, say, math or literary talent. Display the first of these, and you’re excused from developing any others. So Simpson, who’s clearly a smart guy, writes letters that don’t appeal to the obviously 99.44% verbal Toobin. OJ also doesn’t get the things that might have drained away some of the hubris that has been his downfall. (Getting your brain rattled around in any number of tackles and late hits doesn’t help either. Please note: I’m not excusing OJ.)
In fairness, it should be pointed out that a high IQ does not prevent an individual from being a sociopath. Example, a man named Caryl Chessman, known as the Red Light Bandit, who was convicted of rape and kidnapping in violation of California’s Little Lindbergh Law, and eventually executed in California’s gas chamber. Chessman had an IQ of 160 but was, in fact a sociopath. Without going into the gory details, many of the critics of the application of capital punishment on Chessman objected because the kidnapping charge was a considerable stretch. Chessman removed his victims from their cars and transported them to his car some 100 yards away where he committed his rapes (he didn’t actually kill anyone, although one of his victims spent years in a mental institution due to the trauma of the rape). Now it should be acknowledged that Chessman was a scumbag and no tears should be shed for him. However, the principal that the charge of kidnapping was clearly not what the legislators had in mind when they passed the law should not be overlooked.
In fairness, it should be pointed out that a high IQ does not prevent an individual from being a sociopath.
In fairness, you might consider posting refutations of an indefensible claim independently, rather than making it appear that the claim was mine. The world is full of political figures who demonstrate that high intelligence and sociopathy can coexist quite happily. BTW, I remember the Chessman matter in real time, as it gave my conscience a hard time when I took a job in California a few years later. (Old-stock Michiganders really don’t like judicial homicide.)
IMHO, regardless what one’s opinion is on capital punishment, the Little Lindbergh law was improperly applied to Chessman as the charge of kidnapping was nothing but an excuse to rid society of a bad actor. However, Chessman’s intellectual arrogance didn’t help his case any as he insisted on conducting his own defense in the original trial. Chessman was apparently ignorant of the old saw that one who acts as his/her own lawyer has a fool for a client. Had he had capable representation, he might well have beaten the kidnapping charge.