Rod Dreher on Sullivan’s pot bust
I think Rod has the most eloquent take on Andrew Sullivan’s recent brush with the law:
Do I think it would be unjust to keep Andrew Sullivan from becoming an American citizen because he was arrested for possessing a small amount of marijuana? Yes I do, and at a certain level I’m glad this pot bust won’t be counted against him. But I am more troubled by the idea that a famous and well-connected person received special treatment in a criminal matter, for no apparent reason other than he’s famous and well-connected. I look forward to Sullivan’s account of this matter. … I’m not sure how he is going to continue to argue that US personnel who arguably tortured detainees should be held to the law, regardless of their subjective circumstances, given how he got off scot-free because the US Attorney declined to apply the law to him in a circumstance under which he (the US Attorney) routinely applies it to others.
I agree with Rod that expelling someone from the country for smoking pot is probably unjust. But I also think that the well-connected and wealthy using said wealth and connections to circumvent laws that adversely affect others is even more unjust. Sullivan posted a couple of stories about the bust on his blog without commenting further, which I think is pretty weak on his part. We’ll see what he has to say for himself once the attendant legal issues clear up.
Weekly Podcast
"Inside Washington Weekly"
Upcoming Events
Who We Are
How We Roll
- @TAC
- AmSpecBlog
- Andrew Sullivan
- Ann Althouse
- Brendan Conway – The 20% Risk
- Culture11
- Daniel Larison
- David Frum
- Democracy in America
- Deputy Dog
- Ezra Klein
- FP Passport
- John Schwenkler
- Julian Sanchez
- Kerry Howley
- Marc Andreesen
- Marginal Revolution
- Matt Yglesias
- Megan McArdle
- Polaris
- Postmodern Conservative
- Pundit Kitchen
- Rod Dreher – BeliefNet
- Ross Douthat
- Shadow Government
- Splice Today
- The American Scene
- The Becker-Posner Blog
- The Confabulum
- The Debatable Land
- The Plank
- The Washington Realist
- Washington Post Capitol Briefing
- Why Boys Fail
- Will Wilkinson
- xkcd
8 Comments - add your own
mikeybackwards — September 13, 2009 at 1:35 pm
So when can we expect you to join in the call for prosecution for those accused of violating the US treaty obligations and laws against the use of torture, for the individuals who violated the laws forbidding the use of wiretaps without warrants and other similar crimes since it is only their wealth and/or well connected status that has protected them so far?
Oh that’s right, we won’t hear that from you because you are perfectly comfortable arguing one thing when it is those who you oppose or who hold positions you don’t like and another when it those who you support or who hold views with which you agree, you hypocrite.
Sonny Bunch — September 13, 2009 at 2:30 pm
You won’t see me joining those foolish people because I don’t believe that the regime drawn up on interrogations/wiretaps actually violated the law.* But I’m not going to bother debating that point with you because I learned long ago that liberals find moral preening to be more important than national security/protecting American citizens. So have fun yammering about that, but don’t expect me to join in.
*For the record, I have no real problem with prosecuting those who went beyond the legal regime drawn up by the Bush administration as I’ve said repeatedly on this blog. But I don’t think that pretending to drown terrorist murderers for interrogative purposes is torture.
Jake — September 13, 2009 at 2:32 pm
“We’ll see what he has to say for himself once the attendant legal issues clear up.”
All charges were already expunged through his connection. There is absolutely no reason he can’t discuss the issue, except his own embarrassment.
Sonny Bunch — September 13, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I’d be willing to bet there are still some ancillary immigration issues that come simply from being charged with possessing a controlled substance, hence the legal advise to stay quiet. But I don’t know for sure…
mikeybackwards — September 13, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Ah yes, the old liberals don’t care about safety and security canard.
Sonny you are a tool and a fool.
blind illiterate — September 13, 2009 at 10:01 pm
6) If respondent doesn’t engage in unrelated topic you try to compare something to in order to equivocate, trivialize, and change the subject, then try flat out accusing him of “same old spin,” playing a typical “card,” “trope,” or “canard” that he obviously didn’t say in order to force him to needlessly repeat himself.
(note: Always try to throw in a few insulting epithets at this point to divert attention from the fact you are not interested in reading, listening, or addressing his actual statement (you will receive bonus points if the insults rhyme!))
mikeybackwards — September 13, 2009 at 10:17 pm
blind illiterate –
You are such a good sock puppet. Keep the list growing. You might actually come to see that you have more items on the list than topics because the only one who is trapped in a limited paradigm is yourself.
blind illiterate — September 14, 2009 at 1:50 am
7) As always: vaguely wild, unfounded, and unprovable accusations are key. Just throw it out there, as incoherently if possible. Remember that the best deflection is projection.