Letters to the Editor
-
Just compare him to Elliot Richardson
Attorney-General Elliot Richardson (one of those elitist, Ivy League-educated Boston brahmin war hero types) resigned rather than do Nixon's illegal bidding during the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre". He refused to see himself as Dick's attorney-general - he was America's.
-
Storming the Bastille
Can we get the I$raelis to give us their eight-times-the-size-of-the-Berlin-wall and put it around the DC beltway? Lock every suit in DC inside and LEAVE THEM THERE..? Not a bad thought -- return power to the states. Shun the Feds.
-
Impeachment...
As bad as Nixon was, he was not actually impeached. That seems such a simple fact that one should get right if one is to cast stones at the current (bad) president.
Does truth only matter when it speaks to our particular interests?
-
Gonzales - an example (of something)
I remember I was dating a law student when Gonzales' torture memo first began circulating in legal circles. She gave it to me to read, and though I'm no lawyer, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I had to read it twice before it completely sank in. I remember thinking, and saying at the time, that it was the nearest thing I'd heard of in American legal history to calling for a total end to democracy in favor of autocratic executive authority. It was something I would have expected to read in the official papers of some Reichsmarshal; that was what made it so stunning. Gonzales' apointment as Attorney General was no great surprise, considering the long line of human garbage Bush had already appointed to other key positions. What's a surprise is that it's taken this long for the progressive press to make noise about Gonzales' record and what it _really means_ to this country. We are dealing, in Gonzales, with a man who has no more regard for democracy or the rule of law than does Osama Bin Laden; and even less of a coherent ethos. But let's face it: At this point, the issues are too complex for the willfully undereducated American public to comprehend; the fear is too strong for them to reject the government's version of events; and our society is on a fast track to dictatorship, thanks in no small part to the media's captitulation to the right-wing propaganda machine since the ascention of these criminals.
-
Practical reasons (not excuses) for illegal wiretapping
There are a couple of other reasons.
Reasons (not acceptable excuses, but at least understandable) to break the law about wiretapping:
- It’s safer, legally, to deceive the judicial system, media, law enforcement, and government watchdogs outside of a specific legal context than to deceive one judge within a legal context (obtaining a warrant). The NSA does not always want to reveal the source of the information justifying a warrant, but judges frequently want to know. Rather than choose between deceiving a judge or revealing NSA involvement in a case, the NSA bypasses the court system altogether. It's the same rationale behind not swearing in someone providing testimony; there's less legal danger if they're caught lying.
- Obtaining a warrant creates a trail. In these days, when you simply need to move a citizen out of the country to remove their rights, obtaining a warrant simply makes it easier for a suspect’s family, lawyer, or the media to track them down.
- And of course, the reason discussed in Mr. Cole's article: You create a precedent of power. Assuming the NSA and Bush get away with the warrant-free wiretapping, they have expanded their sphere of influence considerably, and will be that much more difficult to control.
Focussing solely on the "unbridled power" of the situation is to underestimate the machinations of the people involved in this. This behavior is not just a symptom of sheer desire for power, it has practical implications for consolidating and keeping that power. To fight this behavior effectively, you have to understand it fully. Know your enemy.
Note: I've written about this elsewhere, but it seemed worthwhile to mention here. My apologies if anyone already read some of this in my blog, though I find it unlikely ;-)
-
Rome and Athens
During emergencies both Rome and Athens appointed persons to govern who had "temporary" absolute power, which was to be relinquished when the crisis was over. There were, however, no objective criteria for determining what was (or was not) a crisis. The crises became of longer and longer duration until they became permanent. Two words in the English language refer to these officials with "temporary" powers: dictator and tyrant. We need to beware of those who use tyranny to protect us from tyranny.
-
Utterly alien
As a European who grew up in the Soviet Union, what I find the most bizarre aspect of the entire story is how unconcerned most of the American public appear to be about this.
As a nation, you are about to lose the most important parts of that which the nation used to stand for - freedom, democracy, rule of law... Why do you let this happen? Indifference? Ignorance? Hypocrisy?
It's like a slow-motion train wreck - I'm at a safe distance yet I can't help feeling alarm, shock, horror. I cannot imagine freely choosing to live in a country like that!
-
The Next Argument
The next argument for the Bush Administration will be that it is not subject to judicial scrutiny. After all, if the executive is not bound by the laws passed by the legislature, why should it be bound by the rulings of the judiciary? The judiciary relies on the executive to enforce its rulings and if the executive chooses to disregard the judiciary, just as it is now disregarding the legislature, then we will be finished as a democracy.
-
Didn't the Senate refuse to require him to tell the truth or even answer a question?
Instead of claiming Bush is a tyrant or a dictator or whatnot, isn't more like what you see all over the developing world? A one-party, the party is the state and the president is the supreme power through any means, seat of government? This is pretty common. Maybe America's critics are wrong and we are more like them than they are willing to admit.
-
Re the Torture Signing Statement
What does Professor Cole make of the next phrase (after the one quoted) in Bush's signing statement--the one about the courts? Even though I am a lawyer, I have not been able to parse through that, but it appears to say that the courts cannot review the Absolute Monarch's, oops el Presidente's determination to ignore the law as and when he sees fit.