Reddit Reddit reviews With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

We found 29 Reddit comments about With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Civil Rights Law
Constitutional Law
With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful
Check price on Amazon

29 Reddit comments about With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful:

u/Terr_ · 110 pointsr/worldnews

Why do you sound so surprised? It's similar in America. Once you stop talking about "the little people" (i.e. at least 99% of us reading this) it happens frequently.

It's just easier to see it going wrong somewhere else, because all the flag-waving and "for the good of the nation" crap is more transparently-absurd when it isn't your own flag and nation.

  • Here in the US, we have politicians who admit (in interviews and memoirs) to behavior which are federal felonies... and also war-crimes (under multiple ratified treaties), yet our political class always just says "It's time to look forward, not back"[2] and sweeps it all under the rug. Virtually every US presidency in the last four decades (including the current one) has vigorously protected the members of the previous one from investigations or prosecutions, anything on the scale from outright pardons to refusal to prosecute to back-room (but still documented) lobbying efforts.

  • Even outside political offices... A wealthy hedge fund manager slams into a bicyclist with his car, and flees the scene, eventually stopping to call for a tow-truck from a Pizza Hut parking lot so that he can get his car secretly repaired. The cyclist, on the other hand, ends up being rushed to the hospital with internal bleeding, spinal injuries that need surgery, and eventually plastic surgery for the scars to his face and body. The manager, meanwhile gets caught by the police, but gets off with a misdemeanor[1] because, in the words of the prosecutor, "felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in [his] profession".

  • Example: Conversely, while that rich guy gets off light (because prosecuting him might interfere with Rich People's Money) there's an unarmed homeless man, who non-violently robbed a bank (with his hand in his pocket to suggest a gun) and who refused to take more than a single $100 bill, giving the rest back to the cashier. He turns himself in the next day and confesses to stealing so he could stay at the detox center, and gets a minimum of 15 years (!) of prison. He'll probably die in there from old age before he gets out, because mandatory minimum sentencing laws prevents the courts from doing much else.

    And that's not even touching what the US does to whistle-blowers who try to expose possible criminality within the government.

    For a more in-depth investigation of recent examples (and who benefitted from pardoning who, who was punished for whistleblowing,etc.) try: With Liberty and Justice for Some.


    [1] For those unfamiliar with US law, most crimes are separated into either misdemeanors (minor crimes of misbehavior, like littering or parking your car where you shouldn't) versus felonies (things which are either "evil" or at least incredibly reckless, like stealing or killing). The distinction between the categories can matter quite a lot in certain situations.

    [2] Another variation is "We're not here to seek revenge, we need to focus on keeping it from happening again... like we said last time... and the time before that... and the time before that...."
u/Phuqued · 58 pointsr/politics

I'd recommend checking this thread.

u/AppropriateAlias · 57 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

[Glenn Greenwald (the main reporter of Snowden docs & person who showed Clapper was lying) actually wrote a book on how, under the US justice system, there are 2 tiers -- one for elites (who don't get punished) and one for everyone else.] (

u/Philipp · 35 pointsr/Documentaries

It's not quite unregulated. It's actually heavily regulated, but the regulations are just stacked against normal citizens.

Take "A corporation is a person". That's a legal concept that is maintained by the government.

Take "I can copyright something". That's a monopoly on ideas which is defended by the government.

Take "You can't photograph my mass farming". Another heavy regulation.

Or take, of course, the bail-outs themselves -- that's a perfect example of government not letting capitalism go its way, but rather, stepping in.

(An interesting book on the subject: The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer. On a related note, by Glenn Greenwald: With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.)

u/MLNYC · 22 pointsr/pics

Someone should write an in-depth book exposing this two-tiered justice system.

Oh, thanks, Glenn Greenwald!

With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

u/SernyRanders · 13 pointsr/SandersForPresident

A book recommendation on a sad day for democracy:
>With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

>- Glenn Greenwald

u/seospider · 13 pointsr/HistoryWhatIf

Glenn Greenwald, who reported the Edward Snowden revelations, argues that this decision set the precedent for the powerful in the U.S. publicly and unapologetically declaring that the law applies differently to them then it does to the masses.

u/robotfuel · 12 pointsr/worldnews

>giving Glenn Greenwald a megaphone to spout his baseless venom however, is wildly unprofessional.

What specifically do you mean by 'baseless venom'?

I've watched his lectures at colleges, his debates on TV amongst the different news stations across the globe and read With Liberty and Justice for Some and not once have I ever thought his arguments were 'baseless' because he provides facts and empirical evidence that can be looked up and verified.

More recently the message he usually conveys is that he wants to shed light on what powerful people are doing in the dark. i.e. The NSA constructing a world wide, indiscriminate spy network that can be used against anyone at the whim of those who control it. Something that was considered wild conspiracy theory only 4 months ago.

How is this a bad thing? To want to inform the public of what powerful people are doing in the dark? To promote the ideal that investigative journalism is one of the main checks to power that we have?

Additionally his book "With Liberty and Justice for Some" gives quite a few examples about how there is a very real two tiered justice system dominant in the US. On one side you have the very rich who do not suffer for their crimes against humanity (Cheney/Bush & their false Iraq War, HSBC Laundering Billions for Drug Cartles, etc) and the full weight of the law coming down on petty drug offenses.

I can, however, understand how one would consider the words coming from Greenwald's mouth 'venemous'. His penchant for the truth and his debate skill usually cuts to the bone. Not once have I ever seen him lose a debate. Not once. And while that in and of itself is no indicator of the truthfulness of one's words ( this scene from Thank You For Smoking comes to mind ) it does merit a degree of respect. Especially when you do look up the things he has to say and find out they are rooted in truth.

Compare that with say, someone like Rush Limbaugh or Bill'O'Reily, who seem like divisive demagouges that appear to truly spout baseless venom. Many times when you look up what they have to say it's often half-truth or an outright lie. Twisted words for twisted people with twisted agendas.

Rush and Bill seem to feed off of and appeal to the very worst in humanity - fear, xenophobia, selfishness, greed - I don't see Glenn Greenwald doing the same kinds of things.

u/sotheysaidthen · 7 pointsr/worldnews

It's more like the girlfriend who kept cheating on you over the years with different people is now being caught doing an orgy on webcam.

History repeats itself if we don't prosecute criminals.

u/hererinchina · 6 pointsr/worldnews

Companies made up of criminals, in this case. Who else do you think actually commits the crimes?

Of course, the Obama administration also directly grants immunity to single criminals:

"In court papers filed today ... the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law."

These aren't singular "looking forward in a spirit of forgiveness" cases, as politicians like to present them. These are actions which help future crimes, as everyone gets the message that with a high enough standing, no court can hurt you. This follows a pattern going back to not just the pardoned Nixon. Glenn Greenwald, who works with whistleblower Snowden, wrote an excellent book on the subject.

u/PrestonPicus2016 · 6 pointsr/SandersForPresident

We have to make the government's actions public and keep our private lives private. It's terrifying to see what Glenn Greenwald uncovered:

Patriot Act goes too far, FISA courts have no real oversight capacity, the whole thing is a mess.

We have to start by applying the law. If you do something illegal, as the NSA did, as many of these agencies did, there have to be consequences. This is the problem with so much of our system: no consequences. Illegally spy on Americans? No consequence. Illegally kidnap and torture innocent people because you thought they were terrorists? No consequences.

Heck, even Dick Cheney, who was wrong about almost every single thing he did as VP, still gets to go on TV and sell himself as some kind of expert. It's amazing.

When these organizations break the law, someone besides the whistleblower has to go to jail.

u/ugottabe · 5 pointsr/politics

> authorized a variety of actions that had no pretense of law

Retroactive immunity? Check.
Pardoning of lawbreakers? Check.
Widening of laws to make legal what wasn't? Check.
Criminializing those who talk about this? Check.

Now guess which country I'm talking about...

u/rdancer · 5 pointsr/HillaryForPrison

The two parties are the product of the voting system. The corruption is a separate issue, having to do with elite immunity.

u/thaway314156 · 4 pointsr/politics

"Sorry, I had affluenza!"

Glenn Greenwald wrote a book about the whole equal laws bullshit before he was the NSA Leaks guy:

u/fidelitypdx · 3 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

> You can't say Trump doing it is okay because Bush did.

Don't put words in mouth that aren't there: it isn't good for an elected official to have conflicts of interest. I think both candidates in 2016 offered differing conflicts of interest, but that's a different story.

> I think maybe a better question is when did this sort of behavior become acceptable?

Glenn Greenwald argues in his book "With Liberty and Justice for Some" that American Democracy and government fundamentally changed when Richard Nixon was pardoned. I think that's part of the answer - since that event we've really viewed the elected officials as a ruling class; thus exempt from moral and ethical conditions we apply to ourselves.

But there's also an ideological root to all the acceptance of this; core to the belief of Ayn Rand and some libertarians is that business leaders should make the best public leaders. So, if you've been successful in private business you ought to have influence in public policy as well.

With the rise of H.W. Bush (Sr.) as Vice President of Ronald Reagan, this ideology had become fully embraced by the Republicans. H.W. Bush was known as an oil tycoon, and it was expected that he could level out the oil prices through his inside knowledge.


But then we also need to backup and realize that this isn't a problem exclusive to the White House; the "revolving door" of public appointments and private business has been documented for about 100 years. This isn't a new thing, and in some ways it makes sense to have people familiar with the industry making decisions about an industry. That's a whole other topic though. Anyways, we shouldn't pretend that Trump is an unprecedented nefarious evil about to doom America because he has some business interests. The reality is that a fuckton of politicians at all levels have business interests - many would argue that's not a bad thing.

u/sjmdiablo · 2 pointsr/politics

I read Glen Greenwald's With Liberty and Justice for Some and Matt Taibii's The Divide back-to-back this year. The raison d'être of the law has changed from ideas and needs springing from the philosophy of justice into a weapon to maintain the status quo, something cruel and indifferent.

u/_Sheva_ · 2 pointsr/politics

He already wrote that book.

'With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law is Used To Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful'

I am sure Dick Cheney is mentioned once or twice. He was already well aware of the Dick's crimes when he wrote it.

u/reiduh · 1 pointr/bayarea

This woman makes me livid... my blood boils, once more.

I wonder which wrist they'll slap

> "Nadia recognizes her error, and she intends to take all appropriate action to regain her health."

Bullshit. Wasn't that from last time's?

u/noodlez222 · 1 pointr/Libertarian
u/Osterstriker · 1 pointr/Libertarian

Glenn Greenwald examined this problem very extensively in his latest book, With Liberty and Justice for Some. Basically, he traces this modern-day erosion of the rule of law and two-tier justice system to when Ford pardoned Nixon.

He also outlined the major insights of his book in a 2011 interview with Harper's.

u/Malizulu · 1 pointr/technology

Prove me wrong.

Or perhaps read a book. Or watch a lecture.

u/manisnotabird · 1 pointr/politics

Glenn Greenwald's 2011 book With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful is a very good history of how elites have increasingly escaped the justice reservered for the rest of us.

u/supperslurp · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

That's it in a nutshell. Some more general background is in this great book.

u/signtoin · 1 pointr/politics

It's not complex, it's very simple: the powerful and rich have gotten away with crimes for the past decades (to just cover recent history). Here's a great read on the subject.

u/iStandWithBrad · 1 pointr/IAmA

>Would this also bring up the case as to. Wether or not we have two different systems of justice in the United States: one for the regular common folk and another for the wealthy elite.

Award-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald actually recently published a book on this subject, titled With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.

u/bames53 · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

> In the state of nature we have the right to do so, wouldn't you agree?

No. Certainly you can define a concept of rights and justice which holds that to be true, but there are alternative conceptions which hold that it is not just or right for one person to murder another. You've simply assumed that a 'social contract' is the only way to avoid the problems created by the conception of rights you're using.

Here's one alternative some people use: Justice and rights are defined in terms of who may use or exclude others from what rivalrous goods. Those definitions are called 'property rights'. These definitions don't say anything about what kind of society will develop or how disputes would be resolved in practice. It's only a standard for determining what is or isn't 'just'.

Under this conception of justice what is or isn't just is invariant and does not change based on some collectively decided 'social contract.' What social institutions evolve and whether they promote or retard justice is irrelevant to the basic definition of justice.


> You know that is how it would be structured; it is like an insurance plan. You pay for certain coverage. The more money you have, the more coverage you can get. By that definition, the homeless could just be outright murdered in the street without repercussion. Jails would not exist.

You might be interested in reading some materials on historical examples of how well various things have worked. For example The not so Wild, Wild West, and David Friedman's Legal Systems Very Different From Ours (Draft) (It's not about a bunch of libertarian systems, but it provides a bit of perspective on different systems).

> My dystopia would be one where different laws apply do different people, and your ability to receive protection depends on your ability to pay.

With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

u/TominatorXX · -5 pointsr/law

Yes, when it involves very rich people or people who work in or own large banks. What's the saying: The easiest way to rob a bank is to own one?

Here are two books which should look good in your paper:

  1. Matt Taibi:

  2. Glenn Greenwald:

    Both books deal with how prosecutions these days are not being done if you are rich enough and powerful enough. My favorite statistic is the number of bankers that liberal Ronald Reagan's DOJ put in jail during the S and L crisis of the 80s' (thouands? 1,800?) versus Barak's prosecution of NOBODY, basically, in the large banks. And, worse, DOJ admitting, yeah, we're not prosecuting them. HSBC money launders for Al Queda and drug lords. No problem. Civil or criminal fine is enough. No jailtime for anyone.

    DOJ had a press conference and Holder admitted, yeah, we're not going to prosecute big banks because they're too big, we'd worry about the impact. Huh what? That's something truly new and worthy of your attention. More sources: