cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/15786121

The Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald takes on famed lawyer and author Alan Dershowitz.

Professor and legal scholar Alan Dershowitz and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald debate the resolution, “The U.S. should strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

Taking the affirmative is Dershowitz, an American lawyer and law professor known for his work in U.S. constitutional law and American criminal law. From 1964 to 2013, he taught at Harvard Law School, where he was appointed as the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law in 1993. He is the author of several books about politics and the law, including The Case for Israel, and The Case for Peace. His two most recent works are The Case Against Impeaching Trump, and Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo. In January 2020, he joined President Donald Trump’s legal team as Trump was being tried on impeachment charges in the Senate. He is a strong supporter of Israel, self-identifing as both “pro-Israel and pro-Palestine.”

Taking the negative is Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer, investigative journalist, and best-selling author. Acclaimed as one of the 25 most influential political commentators by The Atlantic, one of America’s top 10 opinion writers by Newsweek, and one of the Top 100 Global Thinkers for 2013 by Foreign Policy, Greenwald has won the highest awards in journalism, including the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for the NSA-Snowden revelations.

This debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

Chapters:

  • 00:00:00 Introduction
  • 00:02:06 Dershowitz’s Opening Statement
  • 00:19:43 Greenwald’s Opening Statement
  • 00:37:48 Dershowitz’s Rebuttal
  • 00:45:27 Greenwald’s Rebuttal
  • 00:53:56 Q&A
  • 01:35:08 Dershowitz’s Summation
  • 01:40:22 Greenwald’s Summation
  • @makyo
    link
    English
    36 months ago

    The problem with Greenwald is that he seems to have staked his whole reputation on being anti-status quo instead of pro-truth, which has already put him on the wrong side of history on a number of issues.

    • @jimmydoreisaleftyOP
      link
      06 months ago

      That is another major problem we should take to account when talking with people.

      What is “truth” when we know legacy media is just a stooge of the owner class… we must continue to question and be critical of those with power/influence and esp. those in gov’t.

      Just looking at opensecrets we can see who is being being legally bried.

      Bribery is an effort to buy power, while lobbying is just an effort to influence it; but admittedly, the distinction between the two can be opaque.

      which has already put him on the wrong side of history on a number of issues.

      I disagree with this, and I would go farther that he has shown great moral principles over his many decades of journalism.