Letters to the Editor
-
Vietnam Redux: The Imperial Presidency
America crossed its historical Rubicon in the Mekong Delta during the Vietnam War era, when LBJ and RMN violated the civil liberties of American citizens protesting against the war by illegal wiretapping them. It was when America stopped being a republic and became an empire with an imperial presidency. In response to the violation of the Constitution by an imperial presidency, Congress tried to reassert the traditional checks and balances between the branches of government by passing the Foreign Intellegience Survailance Act. But the Boy Emperor ignored the law.
And we have had two major wars (Vietnam and Iraq)in which a Congressional Resolution passed by the legislature was intrepreted as a blank check by the executive. If Congress had demanded a declaration of war, in which the executive had to provide specific claims for a declaration of war, perhaps we could have avoided the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. Both were predicated upon false premises ( the Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam and the WMD in Iraq). But the members of Congress seem to have abandoned their Constitutional role.
I see little hope that America will have a chance of being a republic again unless Congress takes immediate action on this matter.
Ironically, both wars were ostensibly fought to promote democracy abroad while democracy at home was violated by the executive branch. And so it goes again and again in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
-
NSA made Easy
Simple message,
Dictated comment:
"Change this acronym from (nsa)to (NZA) and the TRUTH becomes apparent."
As apparent as [Freedom, Liberty and Justice for All] in Twenty-first Century, America.
jp irving msha
college station
texas
-
The Dumbest Kids in the Class..
..now run the show. Watching the exercise in fascist hegemony the Gonzalez testimony was, I can't help think back to sitting in college classes in the late '60's. There, when some "conservative" student expressed his views on Vietnam, welfare, minority rights, "Trickey Dick" Nixon or any of the other burning issues of the day, these disciples of William F. Buckley and his ilk were met with howls of outrage and derision from most students, virtually all faculty and eventually enough of the American public to put this country roughly back on a democratic track.
To watch the "grilling" this sycophant and minor league corporate lawyer received at the hands of the Senate committee and hear the same smug non-answers repeated (not that we should have expected anything different) and not challenged, or stand a good chance of being challenged in any meaningful way, makes me believe the "dumb kids" now think they can get away with absolutely anything in the name of "national security."
Someday, when the average American understands the inter-relationship of rights, security and the law and that no man, not even a president, let alone this dangerous incompetent, is above the law, there may be an outcry to restore Constitutional guarantees. Whether this will take a new, miraculously independent media, a messianic anti-leader or, (perish the thought) widespread civil disobedience, I wish I knew...
-
TO: Rich Gibson, RE: Impeachment
That Richard Nixon wasn't actually impeached is pedantic. He resigned because he was well on his way to impeachment.
-
To David Cole re. impeachment
That Richard Nixon was not impeached is far from pedantic. You made a rather serious factual error, and your response is to attack me for being 'pedantic.'
Interesting view of the meaning of facts, especially coming from a person who claims to be a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
You wrote something false. When it was pointed out that it was false you attacked the messenger.
What callous indifference to truth must reside within you.
It pisses me off when the people who I want to agree with have such a casual connection with truth.
Or as that just being pedantic? Is truth among liberals truly relative as the conservatives charge?
-
'The impeached former president'
Is he talking about Nixon? Because the way I remember it, he resigned before he was impeached.
-
Jeez, Rich
T. J. Cassidy never said anything about being a professor anywhere. You must have falsely assumed that anyone writing a letter responding to you was David Cole. Get your facts straight Mr. Thinskin. What callous indifference to detail must reside within you.
It pisses me off when the people who I want to agree with have such a casual connection with truth.
Or do you need to be more pedantic? Is truth among liberals truly relative as the conservatives charge?
-
"impeached former president"
Inclusion of this phrase in the article was due to an editing error; it's been fixed and a correction posted.
-
Endless war on terror, unlimited executive power?
Unlike most conventional wars, it is hard to imagine ever arriving at an armistice in the "war on terror." That would suggest that the President has nearly unlimited, open-ended executive power, *perhaps* checked only by the election process. Lord Acton's warning about the corrupting effects of unchecked power seem once again to be validated. As a teen my faith in civil society was grounded in watching the painful and difficult process of bringing Nixon to justice for Watergate. Now a parent, I wonder how we can instill that faith in civil society in our children when cynicism is repeatedly reinforced by the Bush Administration. Is the American republic reduced to the serial selection of emperors a la Rome?
-
Let's Focus on Concrete Issues to get Bipartisan Consensus
I believe the constitutional issues being discussed around warrantless spying are too abstract to generate concern and immediate action. They are important, but at this time, we should focus on concrete examples to really grab everyone's attention. Let me start with two examples:
1) Does warrantless spying permit the spying agency to listen in on conversations between military personnel and their family to find out who are saying negative things about the situation in Irag? Might not these soldiers or officers who communicate unfavorable accounts possibly be punished by being placed in more dangerous or difficult assignments? Can we allow this to happen?
2) Can the government listen in on the conversation of journalists with their sources even when they have no grounds to suspect any terrorist on the other side of the line? Would the administration not be tempted to harass sources that are giving an unfavorable account of the war? If we allow this to happen, are we not allowing the government to censor legitimate news accounts?
Getting some legislation to compel the administration to submit the names of the people being wiretapped into an official secret record and submitted to an oversight panel of judges, but subject to audit at their discretion, will not take too much time, and is the type of bipartisan action that can result from speaking in concrete terms. It will leave the larger issues still unanswered, but it will address real and immediate concerns.