Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
@ Samson141
[Read the article: The right's explicit and candid rejection of "the rule of law"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. Why can't the Rule of Law be amended to permit acts that are necessary in "stormy times?" What is it exactly that makes the two impossible to reconcile such that the Prince MUST have the ability to ignore the law? If the Prince needs new powers, why shouldn't we expect a reasonable Congress would provide them?
I've addressed the "necessity" 'argument' or 'defence' on my bloga while back:
http://leastdangerousbranch.blogspot.com/2005/01/torture-can-be-just-ticket-just-keep.html
The short of it is: "Look, buster, if you think you need to break the law to achieve a 'greater good', go for it. Just don't expect that you won't have to answer to the law. If what you did was indeed justified, I'm sure you'll get off easy ... maybe even get a medal pinned on you. In any case, surely your own sacrifice is made up for aplenty by the knowledge that you did the right thing."
Of course, the idea that someone should risk some personal sacrifice for 'doing the right thing' is a concept foreign to the chickenhawks in the RW. They want absolution and indemnity in advance in case they f*ck up. Wonder why? (Paul's "three words" come to mind)
2. What if the Prince is an idiot? Do we follow him over a cliff? What if the Prince abuses this absolute and unchecked power? Why should we trust anyone with such power? Is it not a truism that absolute power corrupts absolutely?
I suggest buckets of tar and feathers and pitchforks aplenty. In fact, I think that the utility (und propriety) of this "political solution" has been overlooked in recent years, and it may be time (over-due, even) for the reintroduction of such.
Cheers,
-
A Man For All Seasons
[Read the article: The right's explicit and candid rejection of "the rule of law"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]KathyK quotes Bolt's "A Man For All Seasons"....
Thanks, Kathy. That's my favourite qoue from the play. I've even taken the handle "AMFAS" on the internets in honour of Bolt and More.
I got a kick out of the Thomas More Law Center's amicus brief in the Newdow ("Pledge of Allegiance") case, arguing in favour of the state's power to coerce the little tykes into loyalty pledges. They just don't know the meaning of "irony". Or know their history.
Cheers,
-
@ shooter242
[Read the article: The right's explicit and candid rejection of "the rule of law"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Kovie]: But you do not ignore and defy an existing and as-yet not overturned ruling no matter how egregious and unconstitutional you believe it to be. Nor, for that matter, do you ignore and defy existing laws that you similarly believe are egregious and unconstitutional but have not as of yet been ruled to be so by the courts.
Sure you do, in fact it is a time-honored badge of pride for the left. It's called Civil Disobedience.
Of course, "civil disobedience" refers to citizens that defy the gummint, not gummint that defies the laws (there's another, more accurate, name for that).
The greatest proponent (and practitioner) of civil disobedience didn't yell "I've got a get out of jail free card!" at the top of his lungs when arrested. He told the court that what he was doing was in fact one of the most subversive acts possible and one of the most dangerous to gummint, and that if they believed in their laws and their gummint, they not only should but must punish him to the full extent of the law and in the harshest manner possible. He admitted to the crime, and asked for the greatest penalty of the law.
That's what civil disobedience is all about, Shooter.
Trying to say "Set me free, I didn't break the law" doesn't address the issues, much less remedy them.
Sad to see that you're not edjoomakated enough to know that, Shooter.
Cheers,
-
@ Lisa S
[Read the article: The right's explicit and candid rejection of "the rule of law"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I do disagree that Mansfield was simply pushing a right-wing talking point (presumably that Dems don't comprehend the magnitude of the War on Terror or know how to respond strongly?)
Maybe it's you that don't "comprehend the magnitude of the War on Terr[a]"?
And why do you assume that "respnd[ing] strongly" is the same as responding militarily or even responding appropriately?
Further, WTF does attacking Iraq have to do with the GWOT (other than providing a more sangunary backdrop -- had the photogs been honest -- to Dubya's strutting "manliness" on the USS Lincoln?
Cheers,
-
Pro-Jeck-Shun
[Read the article: GOP presidential debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shooter242:
This sounds like a slumber party sour grapes session, for all the girls that didn't get invited to the prom. Man up you wussies. Not everyone wants to view the world as a nearly empty glass, all the time.
We're not the ones pissing our pants that the big, bad Terra-ists are gonna come steal our lunch money if we don't have our daddy come with us. The females here show more "manliness" than you've ever shown.
You can prove me wrong, Shooter, by signing up for Iraq and getting your ass shot at ... and off. Write us and let us know how it turns out, M'kay?
Cheers,
-
@ bebob-o
[Read the article: GOP presidential debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The most perceptive and insightful thing I've seen all day. Maybe it will be a good day after all.
Cheers,
-
Glenn (from the post)
[Read the article: Neocons' rejection of the rule of law extends to the personal level]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Any neoconservative accused of wrongdoing is, by definition, innocent and wrongfully persecuted. The real criminals are always the prosecutors, the investigators, and the accusers. And even when a noeconservative is demonstrated to be guilty, the pure Goodness -- the Overarching Importance -- of their mission means that they ought to be immune from punishment.
You hit it on the nail. One short graf says it all. How could anyone who's doing Gawd's Own Work (or some similar piece of Important Business) do anything wrong? How could anyone rationally put any roadblocks in their way of any kind as long as they're doing such?
Cheers,