What we keep seeing over and over again is that they don’t believe in any principles, just in a "leader."

If a Democratic candidate were to become the next president, they would immediately demand scrutiny, accountability and oversight – all of the things they now are telling us are not necessary.

These “principles” would immediately become important to them once they don’t have a leader to “trust” in anymore.

Suddenly, it will be acceptable to criticize the Commander in Chief, and such criticisms (when they do it) will not reflect on the welfare or morale of the troops. They don’t believe in a “principle” that criticizing the CIC hurts the troops, they believe that criticizing this CIC undermines the troops because of their blind faith in him.

The Republicans immediately switched their views on the “rules” and “principles” governing Congress when they became the minority, quickly demanding the very “rules” for the minority that they had just condemned as unconstitutional – and they didn’t skip a beat, knowing that they wouldn’t be called upon their hypocrisy.

Unlike the founders of our country, they do not adhere to any basic “principles” only to a “leader.” That’s why they can dismiss the Constitution as a “suicide pact" when it conflicts with something their “leader” has done or wants to do, or their quest for power.

For them, the “leader” is sacred, and there are no principles.

Placing blind faith in the assurances of our political leaders is the precise antithesis of the ethos on which our system of government was founded. Why is that principle even controversial? Since when did we become a country filled with "journalists" and others who are content with allowing political officials to wield unchecked power and who are eager to place blind trust in their Goodness?

These are profoundly important questions, and I do believe that 9/11 did change everything, in that it exacerbated paranoia and the authoritarianism Altermeyer writes of. Paranoia, Fear of the Enemy, and authoritarianism are now at levels nearly unrivaled (in American history). I seriously submit this depraved, literally insane terrorism porn -- that passes for normal commentary at Protein Wisdom -- in partial answer to your inquiry, to wit We Will Lose the War on Terror, which must be read to be believed:

http://proteinwisdom.com/index.php?/weblog/entry/22614

People who are capable of drafting, countenacing and believing such extreme twaddle, are to authoritarianism what a warm moist place is to mold.

"We have determined that certain statements in our November 23 letter need clarification," Hertling wrote.

Words fail me.

Traditionally, when there is no balance of power, when "both sides" collude in the destruction of liberties, generally through cowardice on one side matching malice on the ohter, the weapon of last resort for the people is satire and parody. But how does one satirize the passage from Hayden?

I'm disappointed I guess that perhaps the default response for some is to assume the worst. I'm trying to communicate to you that the people who are doing this, okay, go shopping in Glen Burnie and their kids play soccer in Laurel, and they know the law. They know American privacy better than the average American, and they're dedicated to it. So I guess the message I'd ask you to take back to your communities is the same one I take back to mine. This is focused. It's targeted. It's very carefully done. You shouldn't worry.

This is already like something right out of Brecht. They go shopping in Glen Burnie and their kids play soccer in Laurel. What more could you possibly want?

Why, I'm surprised that the Founders didn't think of that. Instead of all that stuff about checks and balances, they should have just written, "Our leaders shall all go shopping in Glen Burnie and their kids shall play soccer in Laurel, in order to assure that our liberties are forever secure."

That would have done the trick quite nicely, and they could have saved Madison a great deal of trouble as well.

Even if what the authoritarian groupies of this president say is true, that their Dear Leader is Good and Virtuous and only has our wellbeing in mind, their logic is fallacious. Because this sets a precedent. If the Good Leader leaves office and is followed by an Evil Leader, these powers will certainly be abused. This is why, no matter how virtuous our leaders are thought to be, we do not trust them. Instead, we must demand transparency and accountability—because we are a Nation of Laws, and not Dear Leaders.

That said, there is nothing remotely good about our current Dear Leader, or the sycophants who lick his boots. They have demonstrated again and again that they cannot be trusted.

http://tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/13/102010/33

Update on the PATRIOT Act
By Russ Feingold
[...] Another very controversial provision is the expansion of National Security Letter (or "NSL") authority that was contained in Section 505. The Washington Post published a *** http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html *** lengthy story *** last month explaining how easy it now is for the FBI to obtain certain types of records using NSLs, with no judicial review, and it reported that more than 30,000 NSLs are issued a year, a startling new revelation. When the Justice Department issued a *** http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojletter112305.pdf *** letter *** calling the article a "materially misleading portrayal of the FBI's use of National Security Letters," the Post hit back with a *** http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/29/AR2005112901655.html *** short news story *** and a longer online *** http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/05/AR2005120500215.html *** response *** pointing out all the inconsistencies and misleading statements in the DOJ letter. Take a minute to read these materials, and then see if you agree with me and some of my colleagues that we need to place safeguards on the broad NSL power and to put a sunset on that power so that Congress can make sure it's not abused.

The White House has fought reasonable safeguards for constitutional freedoms every step of the way. It has resisted congressional oversight and *** http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/05/06/2005620505.html *** often misled *** the public about its use of the Patriot Act. Now the Attorney General is arguing that the conference report is adequate "protection for civil liberties for all Americans." It isn't and, with your help, we can send it back to the drawing board.
-- Sen. Russ Feingold
Dec 13, 2005 -- 10:20 AM EST