Letters to the Editor
SusanMc
Published Letters: 467 Editor's Choice: 1
-
NeoEthics
[Read the article: Neocons' rejection of the rule of law extends to the personal level]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]GG:
All of this may seem jumbled and inconsistent but it is actually quite coherent and clear. Neoconservatives do not believe in any limits on their power. Their mission in the world is so important and so Good that anyone devoted to it is, by definition, a hero, a Warrior, on the side of Good. By definition, a neoconservative cannot be guilty.
I think they must justify it to themselves (internalize the ethical inconsistency) by believing "Anyone in our place would do the same thing." This is similar to the reaction from the Bushies that we've seen time and again to the many scandals-- in fact, it's often the first response to an accusation. They're not guilty because:
Clinton did it.
The Terrorists wouldn't hesitate to do it.
The Democrats did [whatever illegal activity is being discussed] first!
As if somehow citing some other miscreant's behavior takes debating the ethics or legality of any situation off the table. My kids used to use this same tactic when they were, like, three.
I enjoy Warren Olney whenever I catch one of his programs. Today's "To the Point" was good. He interviews Charlie Savage and then moderates a discussion on the prosecutor scandal, between Roger Clegg (President and General Counsel of the "Center for Equal Opportunity")(oxymoronic name, btw) and David Becker (Senior Counsel at People for the American Way). After Charlie Savage lays out the issues, Clegg's first response is (paraphrased), "This is to be expected. Everyone does it. It's politics as usual." Becker sets him straight.
Hosted by Warren Olney, To the Point is a fast-paced, news based one-hour daily national program that focuses on the hot-button issues of the day, co-produced by KCRW and Public Radio International.
Partisan Politics at the Justice Department
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faces more questions about partisan politics in the administration of justice. Were federal prosecutors hired for their Republican leanings? Did they use their power to influence some of last year's closest elections?
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp#today
[That's the link for today. Tomorrow you have to scroll down and listen under "Recent Shows."]
-
History
[Read the article: Neocons' rejection of the rule of law extends to the personal level]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Margalis:
Shorter RealName: Bush is bad, but he's no Hitler.
Shorter is ripping off Randy Newman!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OldToIF5ZGs
The British are interested in how the Bushes are handling a Royal visitor to Versailles. I liked the soup discussion.
Oops, he did it again . . . President rewrites American history
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1760114.ece
-
The Congress We've Got
[Read the article: Democrats bear responsibility for restoring habeas corpus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]GG:
Democrats -- who calculated that meaningfully opposing this bill would be too politically costly and would jeopardize their election victory -- bear significant culpability for its enactment. And that means that they now bear principal responsibility for its repeal.
Plus, they're the only ones we've got to do it; as you say, I doubt the Supreme Court will fix this-- at least while I'm still alive. Thanks, Glenn-- this is a perfect, succinct explanation, and I'll be sending it to my representatives (all Democrats). It seems, though, that the Democrats who might get the most energized about this necessary correction would be the ones new to Congress, not yet assimilated and fully cognizant of just why they were elected. Also, they have nothing to feel ashamed of, so no guilt to overcome and thus slow them down.
-
Balancing Act
[Read the article: Democrats bear responsibility for restoring habeas corpus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ironclad:
Because no one really has figured out how to fight a non governmental organization that can do damage equivalent to the military capabilities of most 3rd world states.
Please explain how my giving up the right to habeas corpus helps in this fight which, as you state, nobody actually knows how to wage.
you can't yell fire in a theater and claim freedom of speech.
Sure you can. You'll even get the chance to defend yourself in court-- or, at least that used to be the case.
The first thing I thought of was when Lincoln did exactly that during the Civil War- by suspending Habeas Corpus AND ignoring the Supreme Court when they ruled it invalid.
I keep hearing about Lincoln and how he led the way in this brilliant strategy, but no one ever mentions how this worked out for him-- did his suspension of habeas corpus do any good? Did it save lives or win the war? Or has it merely lived on in infamy as some convenient excuse for poor judgment?
-
Bad Precedents
[Read the article: Democrats bear responsibility for restoring habeas corpus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]casual_observer:
On April 27, 1861, habeas corpus was suspended by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory.
Thanks CO. That sounds exactly like our situation today! Versailles is surrounded, sorta.
Ironclad:
For those that pointed out that there was an insurrection when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus - I agree, but it was targeted as much against dissenters (the Copperheads) as those actively supporting the South. I just wanted to make that point since I don't see MAC being used for those aims quite yet. (again - not in any way supporting that (mis)use of Presidential power here, folks!)
So, Lincoln took the extraordinary step of suspending our citizen's civil rights, and it was basically a useless exercise. We should follow this example (except in a far more widespread and unclear manner)-- why?