Goldfarb and jschultz argue, in essence, that the founders intended the exec to have near-dictatorial power in the sphere of foreign policy and war.

The above is one of the talking points used by the authoritarians among us to soften us up. To make "dictatorial" not sound so bad. Like the argument that we don't want congress "micro managing wars" it is used to further a goal by obscuring the big picture with a seemingly "reasonable" interpretation of details (reasonable to them anyway). The establishment/elite/ corporatist/monarchical/authoritarians (whatever you want to call them) would love for us all to get used to the idea that dictators ain't so bad. We need one. Can't everyone see that? We are at war! Lincoln did it! FDR did it! They are going to push this until they are told, or better shown, that their interpretation of executive power will not be accepted.

Take the founders/framers out of it for a second... The way I see it, we the people, in the here and now, must decide if we want to continue down that road. We are faced with it right this very moment. A "public servant" president has claimed those dictatorial powers. Do WE want a "near" dictator (war or no)? Do we want to continue down the road where that interpretation is acceptable? I am positive that Goldffarb and people like shooter, and perhaps jschultz and jstelapro, would be more than happy to do so.

You can debate all you want about whether or not the framers wanted an executive with "near" dictatorial powers (war or no) but in the end it doesn't really matter to me. I am completely unwilling to accept that interpretation. We have seen where that leads. We are living it.

That's why I so vehemently reject the notion that Goldfarb's argument -- or the Yoo memo -- or any of the accompanying instruments -- are "wrong but reasonable."

There's nothing noble about treating disreputable, destructive ideas of that sort with respect and civility.

It isn't enough to respectfully disagree with "near-dictatorial powers" and "enhanced interrogation techniques" and the power to ignore statutes and spy on Americans with no warrants. These are not respectable doctrines. They are equivalent to lies and assaults.

And this is why you have the blog and the following. You see it and say it so much better than nearly anyone else. It is why I have great affection for you and continue to come here and read your work even though I know it is all relatively fruitless sans some accompanying action.

Just look at this thread. Look where words alone get us. We end up bogged down, "debating" with fundamentally unAmerican actors (and their dupes) who perpetrate and perpetuate "disreputable, destructive ideas." It is maddening and, as most of the responses in this thread show, they are winning. There is a "debate."

People delude themselves that they're being high-minded and reasonable and intellectually honest and nuanced by treating them as though they are good faith but mistaken ideas. By doing that, they permit those ideas to enter the mainstream and become legitimized. Those who do that seem to care more about proving how good and reasonable and fair-minded they are than they do about maintaining the necessary taboos on those pernicious concepts.

Just in case the above was directed at me -- and I'm fairly sure it was, at least in part...

My concern is not that I appear high-minded. My concern is that you don't get dismissed by people you need to influence because they don't entirely trust your rhetorical tactics. That's why I nitpick here. -- Jestaplero

Concern troll. In the most classic sense. IMO you nitpick because you would rather not face the fact that you are a willing dupe. You might want to consider taking your "near" hairsplitting somewhere more "serious."

To anyone reading this post: Would you "boo" the president at a public event? -- ethics_professor

Boo the president? That is the absolute least this lying, murderous, torturing "near" dictator deserves.

You can talk all you want about the old idea of respecting the office and not necessarily the man but if that office now represents what people like Goldfarb think it does, then it isn't worth a bucket of piss IMO.

If people aren't booing this president, then they haven't been paying attention. That or they are blinded by their American exceptionalism.

If you were serious, get help. Or a lobotomy. Or eat a bullet. I don't care, and I'll lay odds neither does most anyone else present. -- Iokannan in the Well

I vote for and am appealing to Shooter to go with the "eat a bullet" suggestion. Please hear our appeal Shooter. We are appealing to you.

Since Glenn is on his book tour and we are all waiting around for President Obama to save us...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/4/202512/3459/111/529764

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/4/201114/7056/101/529758