Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Thoughts on Grief and the Grieving Process
The grieving process is horrible but not hopeless.
May 27, 2023
post photo preview
[Glenn Greenwald, David Miranda, 2021]

Note to Readers: Returning to more frequent written journalism is something I have been wanting to do for some time. The combination of David's 9-month hospitalization and the need to launch our nightly Rumble show during that excruciating experience made it virtually impossible to find the time and energy for that. It is something I am still eager to do -- I'm writing an article now about the life of Daniel Ellsberg and my friendship with him for Rolling Stone, as the 92-year-old Pentagon Papers whistleblower nears the end of his spectacular life due to terminal pancreatic cancer. I originally started writing the following thoughts on grief for myself, with no intention to publish it, but decided to do so in part because I know it may give comfort to others (as the article I discuss below gave to me), but also because, for reasons I can't explain, it sometimes helps to write about this for others, and my view of the grieving process has become that you should do whatever provides any help at all to get you through the next day. I realize this is not for everyone but it's what I'm capable of and what is dominating my thoughts right now. I hope to be able to return to producing more traditional written journalism soon. 


 

The pain, sadness, and torment of grief deepens as you move further away from the moment of the death of a loved one. It keeps getting worse – harder not easier – with each passing day and each passing week. I know that it will begin to get better or at least more manageable at some point, but that can and will happen only once the reality is internalized, a prerequisite for healing and recovery. But the internalization that someone is really dead - that there's absolutely nothing you can do to reverse that - requires ample time given its enormity. Three weeks is nowhere near sufficient.

One of the hardest challenges of grief, of the grieving process, is finding the balance between confronting the pain, loss and sometimes physically suffocating sadness – all without wallowing in it to the point that it completely consumes and then incapacitates you. But while you can't let yourself endlessly drown in it, you also can't let yourself use some mixture of distractions, work, exercise and other "return-to-normal" activities to remain in a state of denial or escapism, to avoid the pain and suffering, to deny the need to process a reality this immense and horrible, to anesthetize yourself from the mourning. The pain and suffering is going to come sooner or later, and the longer you evade or postpone it, the more damage it will do.

If you try to close yourself off to it entirety, to pretend it's not there, that attempt will fail. The pain and sadness will come at the worst times, when you're least prepared for it, in the most destructive form, and will find the unhealthiest expression. But if you force yourself to swim in those waters with too much frequency, for too much time, without maintaining a vibrant connection to the normalcy of life, to the people around you whom you love, and to the things you still cherish, it will paralyze and consume you - drain all your energy and life force and replace it with total darkness, mental paralysis and physical exhaustion: just a cold, inescapable sense of bottomless dread. 

There's no perfect sweet spot, but every day, you have to keep trying to find the right balance between confronting and avoiding. What's most daunting is realizing how long this process of processing and acceptance will be: very possibly endless. During the first week after David's death, I told both myself and our kids that the first two weeks would be hard but not the hardest, that worse days lay ahead, once the shock begins to wear off and the inescapable reality sets in, once the ceremonies were over and everyone else moved on and want back to their lives. I knew we would then be left with nothing but the reality of this enormous loss and horrific absence, and that was when the worst days would commence.

But telling yourself that is one thing; experiencing it is something completely different. Even when you think you're momentarily safeguarded from it, it can just penetrate without warning in the sharpest ways. On Thursday, I stumbled into this Guardian article about a top-secret leak in Australia and there was a description of David in the article's second paragraph, printed below, that was the first time I saw this formulation in print. It fell so heavily and jarringly – at a moment when I wasn't prepared for it – because no matter how hard you try and how much effort you devote to it, the reality of death takes a long time to fully internalize. It's just very hard to believe that the person with whom you expected and wanted to share all of your life – decades more – is instead not coming back, ever, in the only form you know, that a person so full of life and strength and force is no more:

I don't know why that phrase packed such a punch. I've seen hundreds of articles and tributes talking about David's death. But this phrase casually indicates that he is someone of the past, with no present and no future in our world. It didn't just talk about the fact that David died but referred to him as a now-and-forever dead person. That subtlety had an impact far more painful and destabilizing than I could have anticipated. It disrupted my emotional state until I could find a way to move on to something else: the central challenge of every day.


 

All of this is complicated -- a lot -- by the need to find this balance not only for yourself but also for your kids, whose grieving is as intense but also different. It's at least just as hard to know how much space to give them to use distractions like entertainment, sports, friends and school to find some breathing space. There's a strong temptation to encourage them to use escapism because one so eagerly -- instinctively -- wants to see one's kids smiling and laughing rather than crying and suffering.

But their own need to feel this loss, the mourning, the sadness, the pain is just as inescapable as your own. There's no avoiding it. It's coming one way or the other, so you often find yourself in the disorienting position of watching your kids cry and show pain, and you feel a form of comfort and relief from seeing it because you know it's good and healthy and necessary that they feel that, even while you are submerged in that sharp, expansive pit in the center of your being that comes from having to watch your own children suffer.

[Rio de Janeiro, March 30, 2022: four months, 1 week before David's hospitalization]

For those interested, I want to highly recommend this op-ed from last week by New York Times editor Sarah Wildman, whose 14-year-old daughter, Orli, just died after a somewhat lengthy and evidently very difficult battle with cancer. Without thinking about it, I messaged her to thank her for her article and we shared experiences, condolences and advice. One thing I did not expect was how much comfort I get from hearing from others - people I know well, people I don't know well, people I don't know at all – describe their own experiences with grief and loss. There's that old cliché that physical death is the great equalizer: the inevitable destination awaiting all of us regardless of status and station. 

That is true of death, but it's also true of grief. Unless one chooses never to love in order to avoid the pain of loss – a dreary, self-destructive, even tragic calculation – the impermanence of everything material that we love means we will all experience grief and the pain of loss until we die ourselves. There's now a substantial body of research on people's end-stage regrets: what humans who know they are dying say they wish they had done more of and less of. 

Virtually nobody nearing the end of life on earth says they wished they worked more or made more money (many say they regret working too much). Most say they wish they had spent more time with loved ones. When all is said and done, one of the few enduring things we really value and from which we derive meaningful pleasure - something we are built and have evolved to crave and need – is human connection. We're tribal and social animals. That's why isolation is one of the worst punishments society can impose, or that one can impose on oneself. And that's why, looking back over these last weeks and even during David's entire hospitalization, thoughts and notes and comments and kind gestures from so many people, to say nothing of those who took their time to write to me to share, often at great length, their own experience with long-term hospitalization of loved ones and profound grief, provided so much more comfort than I ever imagined it would have.

Wildman's op-ed is raw, moving and unsettling. She doesn't falsify or prettify anything for the sake of making her daughter's death more comfortable for others or herself. The death of someone you love at a young age is not pretty or comfortable. It's tragic and deeply sad and incomparably painful and there's no getting around that. Some of the best advice I got in the last couple of weeks was to avoid lionizing David or erecting a mythology around his life or around his death. I loved a human being, not a flawless saint or an icon or an otherworldly deity. And one of the things that moved me most about Wildman's op-ed was her frank discussion of her daughter's fear of dying. It would be so much more palatable - for yourself or others - to say and believe that the person you lost was at peace with dying. Her daughter wasn't at peace with dying, nor was David. They wanted to live and fought to live and were afraid to die.

That's a hard and painful truth that does sometimes make things much more difficult – it means you focus not only on what you lost, not only on what your kids lost, but on what the person who died lost – but one can also find beauty and grace and meaning and inspiration by confronting that rather than whitewashing it. It's disrespectful to someone's life to build mythologies about them - about their life and their death - no matter how comforting those mythologies might be. Wildman's op-ed refuses to do that, yet it leaves no doubt that her daughter inspired her and others not just in how she lived but in also in how she died: with her determination, courage and strength. 

I blocked it out and denied it at the time because I wasn't able to accept it, but David's doctors made clear in the days after he was first hospitalized in ICU last August that the probability that he would survive the week was very low. His inflammation and infection had already incapacitated his pancreas and caused full renal failure within the first 48 hours. By the end of the week he was intubated because sepsis delivered that inflammation to his lungs. Even a quick Google search reveals how dire that state of affairs is for anyone, no matter their age or overall health. 

That David fought so hard to live and return to us over nine excruciating months brought some horrifically difficult moments – watching him and his body get battered over and over every time it looked like he was possibly recovering was probably the worst thing I ever had to witness – but it also gave us and our kids some of our most moving, profound, genuine, loving and enduring moments with him and with one another that I and they will cherish forever, as I wrote about a couple months ago, in the context of gratitude, when I thought he was improving. 

It may seem at first glance that had he died a quick death in that first week, David would have spared himself and us a lot of agony. That may be true. But I am absolutely convinced that had he died in that first week without giving us and himself these opportunities, all of this would be infinitely worse. Every moment you share with someone you love - even if it's in an ICU ward with every machine imaginable connected to them - is a blessing and a gift, and David's characteristic fight gave us so many of those moments that, by all rights, we never should have had.

I really wish there some singular book or some magic phrase or some way of interpreting all of this that would make the still-growing and still-deepening pain disappear for myself, for mine and David's kids, for those who loved him, for those who love and lose anyone that matters so much in their life. There is no elixir. But that does not mean that nothing helps, that one is doomed to a life of endless pain, sadness, and dread, that it is impossible to find comfort and inspiration and even greater love in the grieving process. 


 

For that to happen, you need humility and an acceptance of what you cannot control. I can't bring David back - that's obvious - but I also can't find a way to entirely avoid the type of pain and sadness and despair that is sometimes utterly debilitating. I realized that very early on and so I'm no longer trying to avoid it entirely. 

Sometimes it comes when I seek or summon it, and sometimes it comes when I think I am far away from it - like happened this week when I saw the adjective "late" before his name and on a thousand other occasions when I looked at a photo of him and his eyes connected to mine, or when one of our kids shared a memory they had of him that brought him so vividly to life. When that pain comes, I don't try to fight it or drive it away. I let it come and sometimes stay in it on purpose, until I can no longer physically endure it. Other times I allow myself to be distracted: through work, though entertainment, through proximity to my kids, through conversations with them that are not directly about sharing our mutual grief over the loss of their father and of my husband.

I don't know if I returned to work too early or, instead, am sometimes succumbing too much to my desire not to work. Each day, I try to follow my instinct about what is best for me and for our kids, and to give myself a huge amount of space and forgiveness to calculate wrong and make the wrong decisions. Down every road lies sadness and even horror, but some of those paths also offer some beautiful moments of family and connection, ways to find inspiration, to embrace the spirit and passion and compassion and strength that defined David and his life.

I'm certain that one of the things that is helping most is our unified devotion to concretizing, memorializing and extending his legacy. One of David's greatest joys in life was seeing the construction and opening of the community center we built together in Jacarezinho, the community that raised him. It offers free classes in English and computers, psychological services and addiction counseling, support for animal protection and pet care, and meals for that community's homeless. We are going to create and build "The David Miranda Institute" to extend that work beyond that community. My kids are eager to assume a major role in working on this institute and community center – they know instinctively that it honors David and would make him so proud – and working on this together is one of the few things that provides us unadulterated comfort and uplifting energy. 

The grieving process is horrible but not hopeless. I'd be lying if I denied that it sometimes seems unbearable. Every day the reality that David lost his life and that we lost David in our lives gets heavier and more painful. But humans are resilient. We are adaptive. I can't prove it and there was a time in my life when I not only rejected but mocked this idea, but I believe our life has a purpose and, ultimately, so do our deaths. Each day I see that my suffering and our kids' suffering deepen and worsen for now. 

But I also see us, together, creating ways to find and remain connected to that purpose. David's life, David's spirit, David's legacy, and somehow even David's death are what is propelling us, elevating us, toward that destination. I would trade anything for David to be back with us, but since that option does not exist, getting through the pain and then finding a way to strengthen us is our overarching challenge.

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
134
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Answering Your Questions About Tariffs

Many of you have been asking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, and Glenn addressed how we are covering the issue during our mail bag segment yesterday. As always, we are grateful for your thought-provoking questions! Thank you, and keep the questions coming!

00:11:10
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News
00:04:52
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News
00:08:35
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

I just want to thank your staff for keeping the show going during whatever the heck kind of issue was going on last night. I'm obviously not much of a techie, but it seemed like some kind of attack to me. Plus, the live chat was full of a bunch of weird pro-Israel trolls, who veered from quoting the Bible at us, to bragging about Israel's fighter jets.😲 I imagine the staffers were just as annoyed as we were, while trying to both run the show, & keep it on the air.
I'm watching it now, and it is working perfectly. 😁
Thanks, System Update Staff! 🥰

I am having great difficulty with Glenn’s live streams lately. The stream frequently halts; sometimes briefly; sometimes completely. I have no issues with internet connectivity or bandwidth. I usually employ Safari on a laptop. Refreshing will restart stream, but problem recurs.

Glenn, sorry you were under the weather recently. Sounds like you are much better.
I'd like to know your thoughts on whether the military-industrial-complex is running scared because most of the weapons they sell to the taxpayers, oh sorry I meant the National Security Council/Defense Department, are indeed obsolete or barely functional (remember the dysfunctional nuclear weapons the US placed in Turkey vs. the then USSR's nuclear weapons in Cuba, i.e., Cuban Missile Crisis) and not use the latest technological weaponry, EMP directed (energy directed) with pin point precision avoiding deaths and ruined hospitals, shelters, homes, pharmacies, food markets, fresh water systems and other soft targets? I'm opposed to the continued pillaging of taxpayer dollars en masse for the intergalactic corporate Conglomerate's (ICC) profit margins. I guess us and humans don't care enough to hit the streets nationwide in favor of restraint and peace, even if demonstrations are and should always be ...

post photo preview
Are We Moving Towards War With Iran? PLUS: Zaid Jilani on the El Salvador Deportations and Harvard’s Fight Against Trump
System Update #440

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXf_1zoDZGidR3WMX4wO2lTCxeXvOKu9cbAetVmzHO9bGlTGPZRhLJRjmc7Y9AgDPEXGEZmg26n1k4kuuUv7JilBOypGETN22nABqGdGBYZXRgJyhIpDitUemQUlLC9gAemkvCK-2c1lzddA8ukKx4I?key=EGpVyLD065YXyfsH2feda6lm

Michael Tracey is filling in for Glenn, who is off “gallivanting around somewhere on one of his mysterious misadventures.” 

Zaid Jilani is Michael’s guest to talk about what everybody is talking about: the Trump administration's threat letter to Harvard, which Harvard has defied.

 Tracey also covers what appears to be telegraphed as an increasingly likely march to war with Iran. According to the intrepid journalist, the war may not happen, but the groundwork is certainly being laid. 

AD_4nXf_1zoDZGidR3WMX4wO2lTCxeXvOKu9cbAetVmzHO9bGlTGPZRhLJRjmc7Y9AgDPEXGEZmg26n1k4kuuUv7JilBOypGETN22nABqGdGBYZXRgJyhIpDitUemQUlLC9gAemkvCK-2c1lzddA8ukKx4I?key=EGpVyLD065YXyfsH2feda6lm

AD_4nXdtSpUB4mwGXo2BYjVMmh9fOVCVsuGeOs3nqSOZR_aKLCFC9enEH6XcxUTVOEWzqCIUmuxV4tQWqGnssdHtajn7colx-8ZXmW-aGzenMrIzcOJzNroDv_nxxkKL8GUHiDJ48PfQpOQSbIb-P2w_LA?key=EGpVyLD065YXyfsH2feda6lm

There was another aspect of that Bukele meeting that hasn't gotten enough coverage: Trump was asked about the Iran negotiations that are sensibly underway between the United States and Iran. It's the first known senior-level contact between American senior leadership and Iranian senior leadership since the Obama administration – infamously, Donald Trump decided to withdraw, after the Obama administration, from Obama's signature foreign policy diplomatic achievement. 

You can criticize that achievement or herald it, but it was his signature achievement, I think it would be hard to dispute, which was the Iran nuclear deal, or the JCPOA. 

Trump campaigned for president in 2016, denouncing that deal. I vividly recall him appearing at a Tea Party Patriots protest in September 2015, alongside Ted Cruz, that was devoted to denouncing the JCPOA, with Trump saying he had never seen a worse negotiated deal in his entire life. 

Anyway, direct negotiations, or at least direct contacts, we don't really know the full extent of what's been discussed yet, have begun between the United States and Iran as of this past weekend. And Trump was asked about those negotiations. 

So, let's hear what he had to say. 

Video. Donald Trump, Nayib Bukele. April 14, 2025.

 That's Trump being asked if he is contemplating, or does the outcome envisioned here include a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, and Trump says, “Of course it does.”

Trump has been becoming more and more brazen with these overt threats against Iran, particularly since March 30, when he decided to place a phone call to Kristen Welker, of NBC News, the host of “Meet the Press.” “There will be bombings the likes of which they have never seen before.” That's what Trump called up Kristen Welker of NBC News and told her in a phone interview. 

There could be an extent to which people are inured by this because Trump says a million things every day, some are deliberately incendiary, some are sarcastic, some are trolling, some may be earnest. Who knows? We can never quite settle on what the proportion is here in terms of how we're supposed to interpret the endless cacophony of Trump’s remarks on a given day, but it is really worth noting that presidents hadn't tended to come out and publicly threaten Iran that they will be bombed in a time-bound period if they don't capitulate to U.S. demands. 

You have had previous presidents, including Obama, say stuff to the effect of all options are on the table with respect to Iran. But it was seen as so obviously bellicose and so obviously impermissible diplomatically to come out and just blatantly threaten to bomb Iran. Why? Because, in the case of Obama, if there was some potential diplomatic arrangement in the offing, which Obama subsequently did attain in 2015, then running around threatening to bomb Iran might be an impediment to achieving that because it could cast aspersion, grave aspersions on the intentions of the United States and its attempt to interact with Iran. 

So, I actually went and asked a handful of people who are the wrong kind of policy experts, who are involved with Iran policy professionally and know the history of Iran and U.S. relations really well. I asked them: Is there a precedent of a U.S. president cavalierly coming out and just saying there will be bombing of Iran if X, Y and Z don't happen? And they say, “No, no, this is unique to Trump,” except for Trump's first term, when he did threaten, after the Soleimani assassination, in January 2020, to bomb Iranian cultural sites. But other than that, it's really not customary for presidents to be so bombastic in their public utterances with respect to Iran. 

There are certain ways in which Trump really does defy foreign policy convention in a salutary way. One hallmark example from the first term is when, after some initial bluster, he did initiate direct diplomatic relations with Kim Jong-un of North Korea. The negotiations with North Korea didn't ultimately result in a settlement because, for one thing, Trump and his administration at the time insisted on maximalist demands around denuclearization that North Korea, as a matter of national pride or even personal pride on the part of Kim, was never going to agree to but it did break a significant taboo for those direct talks to even happen in the first place. It likewise breaks a taboo for Trump to be threatening to bomb Iran so openly, pursuant to some cobbled-together negotiations, which it's not even clear are in particular good faith. 

So, that just is an indication of how it can be a double-edged sword meaning defying foreign policy convention can at times be salutary because foreign policy consensus is rife with failure, rife insular clique type thinking, and often revolves around people who have a demonstrable track record of myopia and “inhospitability” to criticism or contrary ways of thinking. So, Trump has at times the ability to disrupt that. But the double-edged sword is he could also say he's defying foreign policy convention because it hadn't previously been conventional to just be openly threatened to bomb Iran as he's doing now repeatedly in hopes, presumably, that it could result in some diplomatic settlement because Iran is just going to be so bludgeoned into submission that they're going to agree to maximalist demands imposed by Trump. But who knows? It could also be a pretext for war. Trump could say, “Look, we made every effort to negotiate with Iran. We even defied some convention by resuming high-level contacts between the U.S. and Iranian senior leadership, but they were so obstinate that we had no choice but to launch this bombing campaign with Israel that we've been threatening for weeks. And actually, even in the 2024 campaign, Trump threatened it publicly then. 

So, let's take a look at what Steve Witkoff, who is becoming an all-purpose Trump envoy, initially focused on the Middle East, and that is still his official title, but he's also leading negotiations with Putin in Russia. He was on Sean Hannity's show on April 14, and he was asked about these ongoing negotiations. 

There's an undercurrent of humor here because Sean Hannity would have blown a gasket in any other circumstance in which a senior U.S. official was trying to justify the utility of directly engaging with Iran. Namely, during the Obama administration, I can vividly recall Sean Hannity thinking that even the mere fact of talking to Iranian senior leadership was an abandonment of core American values or whatnot and giving credence to this Islamic terrorist regime or what have you. But nonetheless, of course, in the presence of Witkoff, he has to remain cordial. 

Anyway, Steve Witkoff here gives some details as to what the conditions might be to obtain a settlement with Iran. 

So, let's take a look at that. 

Video. Steve Witkoff, Sean Hannity. April 14, 2025.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Trump Meets with El Salvador's Bukele: A Tyrant or a Model to Copy? Plus: Trump's Proposal to Deport Citizens There
System Update #439

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXdJRHvTeAKzlwzeqPGNrP3tjR19Ziz75mzVWSrf035D__xksFV6hEzFwy6Due6vfLLjAuGPB22vh7pYlJv_T5_slej1HC9bcTOQpeVtTvaDvUd4yuQg7opLOH55C1QjP5bjcwUkdhzm91bTBXWiNhA?key=TiHlb_8-uEMnv3Vzajy04kdo

There is actually a lot to cover. I want to focus specifically on the meeting that President Trump had in the Oval Office with El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, because there was a great deal of things said that I think weren't a lot of analysis, a lot of breakdowns, a lot of understanding of very consequential claims that were made, claims that in some senses were untrue, other claims seemed to be quite radical. 

It's always hard to know exactly when Trump says something, whether he really means it, whether he's doing it to be a little bit trolling, whether he's going to provoke some sort of response. But it nonetheless is our responsibility if the president of the United States says he intends to do something – and he didn't just say it once, he said it repeatedly throughout the week – obviously then it's important to discuss what it is that he said in the case of a radical idea like deporting American citizens convicted of crimes to El Salvador to serve in an El Salvadoran dungeon that is notorious around the world for human rights abuses.

I think it's very important to take that at least seriously enough to talk about it. If you object, that's your right as a citizen, you could say your duty, certainly a duty as a journalist. So, there's certainly a lot to break down. We will do our best to do that for you.

AD_4nXdJRHvTeAKzlwzeqPGNrP3tjR19Ziz75mzVWSrf035D__xksFV6hEzFwy6Due6vfLLjAuGPB22vh7pYlJv_T5_slej1HC9bcTOQpeVtTvaDvUd4yuQg7opLOH55C1QjP5bjcwUkdhzm91bTBXWiNhA?key=TiHlb_8-uEMnv3Vzajy04kdo

AD_4nXfpEfrK-B7hmk1GoErvAOCfImYliXKJQ0Sya9dWHbBVgFWL66C4dFLsn8-4zTYiPpylo8xlZRAiOmWOJI4Dq7EE8DY4u95hYOlwW9ThP4vXYYIq5qdMWCYlFE2f1v8fbYo1jMV4FEDAbVd8g1dQuw?key=TiHlb_8-uEMnv3Vzajy04kdo

El Salvador is a small country; the U.S. had been at war with it, involved in dirty wars there throughout the 1980s. It is generally considered an underdeveloped country – still is – but President Bukele has gained global attention in part because the government under him just rounded up thousands and thousands of people who were not convicted of crimes but were “suspects in gang violence.” 

No question, a lot of them have been swept up who are innocent, many of them guilty, and they're put into not ordinary prisons, but prisons that are some of the cruelest, most dehumanizing and exploitative in the world, purposely meant to dehumanize. Bukele talks openly about the fact that the prisons pay for themselves because they force the prisoners, basically, to engage in slave labor. They love to take videos and photos and make all kinds of films showing the dehumanization process. 

Rights have been run roughshod over in El Salvador. There's no free speech; you can't criticize Bukele. If you're a journalist, you get attacked by the government if you do so. There's certainly no right to due process. People who go into this prison are meant to stay there for life. There's violence in this prison, not from the prisoners, but from the guards. It's a place that you're intended never to leave. 

A lot of people in El Salvador, as often happens with authoritarianism, love their leader. They love their authoritarian leader because it has had results. It has significantly lowered crime in a place once plagued by a lot of violence, it has now become significantly safer. 

In general, though, we in the United States, our founding values, our founding as based in the values of the Enlightenment, don't believe that we should sacrifice rights for safety. The whole Constitution, in fact, is intended to elevate the rights of people, even if it means impeding our ability to catch criminals. The founders understood, because they were waging a war against the British crown, that all the rights that the British crown routinely invaded in the name of stopping crime – invading people's homes with no search warrant, just rushing them through a trial with no rights if they thought they were guilty – those were the things that had to be avoided if America was really going to be free and democratic. These are the things in the Constitution that you can go and read, none of which are available in El Salvador. 

So, there is a little bit of an oddity that the person most responsible for this authoritarianism – you can even call it tyranny – in El Salvador, although with positive results that many of the people in El Salvador seem to like – again, it's not uncommon for people to love their authoritarian leader. People crave security, crave, crave protection. If you promise them that in exchange for something they fear, they'd be happy to give up rights. We've seen that in American history. That's what the War on Terror was. It's what all sorts of wars in the United States have entailed, including the Cold War. It's a very common formula that the American founders set out to avoid most. 

So, it's a little strange, to put that mildly, to see a political faction – what do you call it? MAGA movement or nationalists, whose primary objective or aspiration is to preserve American values – venerating a tinpot dictator, at this point, of a small Central American country as someone who is not just a close ally of the United States who we pay to imprison people even though they've never been convicted of crimes, we just send them there when their only crime is having entered the United States illegally – although some people have been sent there who haven't entered illegally, who are in the United States legally, seeking asylum, who came through a legal port on the border, the port of entry, as people are told to do. But in any event, it's not just that we're allied with him, but a lot of people seem to really admire Bukele, almost suggesting that we in the U.S. need to use him as a model, to use El Salvador as a model for how our own country should be – in part to fight crime, in part to fight the obvious problem that most people agree is a real problem of people pouring into the country illegally. 

So, the question becomes how much liberty are we going to sacrifice? How many constitutional rights are we to repudiate in the name of these other goals, whether, oh, we have to fight crime as though crime is rampant, worser than usual, or because of the problem of people in the country illegally? 

The laws of the United States make it very easy to deport someone who's in the United States illegally. You don't even have to go to a real court. You just issue a removal order, you go to a special deportation court that's not even part of the Article III Judiciary, it's just inside the Department of Justice, and they just rubber-stamp it. All they want to know is: Is the person in the United States here legally? If the person can't show they are – and it's very easy, it's just, here's my green card, here is my visa – if they don't have that, it means they've entered the country illegally and the court approves their deportation. 

But deportation means sending them back to their country of origin and what has been so controversial is not that. President Trump ran three times on a pledge of sending people in the country illegally to deport them back to their country of origin, people voted for him in the last election based on that promise of mass deportations. Most people involved in these debates have no problem with the legal deportation of people in the country illegally. That's what Trump pledged to do, he had a democratic mandate for that and polls show that's what people want. That's not the issue. 

What's happening is much, much different: people aren't being sent back to their country of origin. They're being sent to El Salvador, a country they've never been to, they have nothing to do with, they're not citizens of, never have been and they're being imprisoned in one of the worst prisons on the planet while the United States pays for their imprisonment and they're being imprisoned for life based on allegations of criminal activity.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Week in Review: Trump's Tariffs, Ukraine Negotiations, Possibility of War with Iran, and More with Glenn Greenwald, Lee Fang, & Michael Tracey
System Update #438

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXeZSLGb5-bsvKxElUsN0Xg269B5CGV-fQ2Nxp8deLVKyEO_Uoxjfgh4OcuqOZZOdsQmnc_9BqZnxjEm7Ewl1989c9QC5dnkLjOfX7trygPCxkElziIeVHvVAUaYyGgLrBEeN7IGMLfxlNRtQ0jsjfE?key=AJuwf2Zv75ppH3iYzyWj-_D4

As a program that covers only two or at the most three issues per night – because we prefer in-depth coverage to sort of cable-style quick five-minute hits of each different news event possible – sometimes, especially these days, it is difficult to keep up with all the news, given how fast and furious things are always happening with this new administration. 

As a result, we're going to try to devote one show per week or so to a sort of “Week in Review,” where we're able to cover more topics than we normally would cover on a typical program by inviting friends of the show on to talk with us about those. 

To help us do that tonight, we are joined by the independent Journalist Lee Fang and the always delightful and agreeable Michael Tracey. 

AD_4nXeZSLGb5-bsvKxElUsN0Xg269B5CGV-fQ2Nxp8deLVKyEO_Uoxjfgh4OcuqOZZOdsQmnc_9BqZnxjEm7Ewl1989c9QC5dnkLjOfX7trygPCxkElziIeVHvVAUaYyGgLrBEeN7IGMLfxlNRtQ0jsjfE?key=AJuwf2Zv75ppH3iYzyWj-_D4

Lee Fang is an independent journalist based in San Francisco. He covers political and corporate wrongdoing on Substack at leefang.com. He previously wrote and reported for The Intercept where he was my colleague for many years; he has also written at The Nation and reported for Vice. He is an intrepid investigative journalist, always breaking lots of stories, working by himself or with an independent team. We are always happy to welcome him to the show. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals