Andrew Sullivan: Glenn Reynolds is a "hack."

For those following at home, Putz responded to Sullivan's earlier beatdown by saying "Nyah-nyah-nyah, Andrew liked Bush once too." A passive-aggressive masterpiece, even by Putzian standards.

Now this response from Sullivan:

Reynolds, in contrast, has never provided an ounce of accountability for his own support for Bush and Cheney and Rove and their entire legacy these past few years. Nowhere is this clearer than on torture, a position that reveals that his alleged libertarianism is simply a cover for a defense of raw power and brute, often vicious, force and brutality.

Remember: back in 2004, his position was that what happened at Abu Ghraib was torture, period, and that those responsible should face jail or execution. His position now is that no legal sanctions should be applied to those responsible for the torture, let alone jail or executuion. In fact, he opposes even further investigation of these war crimes. And what he once called torture, he now defers to Jack Goldsmith's judgment thus:

The people in government who made mistakes or who acted in ways that seemed reasonable at the time but now seem inappropriate have been held publicly accountable by severe criticism, suffering enormous reputational and, in some instances, financial losses. Little will be achieved by further retribution.

So Jack Goldsmith and Glenn Reynolds believes that the techniques revealed at Abu Ghrain seemed reasonable at the time? To whom? Certainly not to Reynolds. And bringing torturers to justice is now "retribution"? And notice the kind of justice this law professor supports: Lynndie England is thrown in jail but the man whose orders she was following remains untouched? What England did was a crime but what those who ordered her to do it were merely making mistakes? Sometimes the corruption of justice fomented by Bush and dutifully echoed by hacks like Reynolds is really brought into the light.

That's gonna leave a mark.