I once asked my mother, someone who lived through the depression and WW2, what she thought of F. D. Roosevelt. I was at the time reading accounts of how he had engineered the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, having to do with the various economic and political maneuverings, the blocking of resources, etc. My Mom said that in her opinion, he was the best President the country ever had because he brought the country out of the Depression, he gave people hope that they would have better days, even if he did the things I suggested about him.

I'm not sure that many people would give Bush or now Obama credit for maintaining the continuity of the government of the United States, if they were told it came by way of giving up our 'political rights', as directed in the 'bill of rights.' Maybe this is what Bush hoped for when he said history would think better of him.

I am not sure that I can give an explanation for the President's motives in supporting this 'state secret' and torture powers. I have the impression that the fact that powerful Democrats went along with Republicans in authorizing these obvious crimes has something to do with it. He wouldn't want to investigate and prosecute his own supporters.

The way I see it, we have to explain why a professor of constitutional law, when he becomes President, would want his government to have the power to 'disappear' people.

I can't believe it has much to do with preserving executive powers once attained. So, the vice president was able to assign teams of assassins to go around the world killing willy-nilly. Is this a priviledge that a sane person would want the government to hold onto?

The development of these kinds of powers has been a long time coming. When the government started passing laws that allowed secret activities, it started us down a slippery slope. When the Supreme Court refused to make a decision about the constitutionality of the Viet Nam war, a war without its being declared one, because, as it said, war was a political question, it made the judicial branch irrelevant further on down the line when questions of torture, rendition, and 'disappearing', cropped up, as they have. All the powers assumed by the executive and the emasculation of the legislative and judiciary are, on this theory, political questions. There is no power in this government, then, that can limit the powers of the executive.

In trying to counter all this 'rush to fascism,' I have been increasingly troubled by your argument in response to these events. I take you to be pushing for a 'return to' and 'maintenance of' a 'rule of law.' You argue, wouldn't it be a great remedy if even the movers and shakers were made to obey the laws. But, how can this be at all adequate when the miscreants themselves write and enforce the laws? Obama himself wants to 'disappear' people.

I'm not wanting to be extra hard on you, like there's been much better strategies put out there. Chomsky tells us social activists for peace and justice have to muscle their way into the halls of power and replace the policies that promote the oligarchs with more humane ones. Well, the oligarchs aren't that easily muscled aside.

And, worse still, in response to the seeming impossiblity of these strategies, Karl told us to just get rid of the oligarchs completely. That won't be any easy thing to do either.

Instead of these proposals, I'm for revisiting our mission statement, i.e., our understanding of what we're here for, and what we are committed to do to get it done. It's what the prophets recommended we do. You have to be able to change what the oligarchs think because I do not believe the weak and pitiful even in concerted action can make them do anything.