Letters to the Editor
-
How corruption works
I think one key sentence in Glen's post is worth pondering:
As indicated, the legislation McConnell is touting empowers the Attorney General to provide amnesty when, in his sole discretion, he deems it to be warranted. Even Congressional Democrats would be reluctant to vest that amnesty power in Alberto Gonzales.
While I'm not sure these Democrats wouldn't (they did just give him more spying power weeks after Gonzales told them to fuck off), the emerging pattern is that it is okay to bend the Constitution and award dictatorial powers because this President will use them for good.
Witness the consistent argument: "we need these powers only so we can stop terror." All tyrants get their power by claiming some reason to need it. Even Hitler didn't come out and say: "I want new powers so I can destroy unions, invade Europe and kill a few million ethnic minorities in a shockingly methodical way."
The notion that you can put rights and laws on hold "for good reason" is a dangerous path. As we all know, the Constitution was written to protect against exactly this kind of action. Even Article 1, Section 9, which protects the right of habeas corpus, already has a qualifier , just in case: in the cases of insurrection or invasion. It does not say, "in the case of a vague threat that may or may not be tied to a single criminal act by a few perpetrators (i.e. 9/11), and at the discretion of whoever the electorate favors in one particular season.
More U.S. residents die every day from all kinds of preventable circumstances than died from terrorism since September 10, 2001, yet we are willing to throw away our rights all based on the idea that "this guy wouldn't abuse that power," whether Bush, Gonzales, or any new AG? As our founders knew, even if we could trust the current leadership (and I think the record proves we can't), what's to stop the next president from using the powers for ill.
Lord Acton isn't the only guy to figure out that power itself is more dangerous than the disposition of he who wields it. That's why we have a Constitution instead of a "best practices" guide.
-
The MoveOn ad
I think it rocked. Face it, we're not going to win by playing nice with a bunch of thugs as well funded and connected as CheneyCorp, the corporate media, the Republican party, and their enablers on the DINO side.
We need to make noise and let the majority of Americans who are steadily realizing that they've been lied to all these years know that there is a reality based alternative to the Potemkin village they are being fed.
-
money and influence yet again
Thank you, Glenn, for the update. It saddens me to see from these confirming sources that it's true that Democrats are seriously considering passing such legislation.
What is perhaps most disgusting about this development is that it completely lacks any sort of groundswell or "mandate" from the public. It is entirely insider-driven and soaked from top to bottom with money and influence. It is the epitome of the powerful and wealthy helping themselves unilaterally to the privileges of government power, at the great expense of any semblance of accountability and deterring encroachments on the Constitution and the rule of law.
And this would be the real tragedy if such retroactive immunity were passed. Gone would be any incentive for citizens and corporations to stand up to government abuses of power that do not harm them directly. Gone would be the willingness of government employees to protest the lawlessness in which they have been asked to participate. With the FISA precedent firmly set, all players asked to lend a hand in lawbreaking would take the easy path of acquiescence, confident that their cravenness would be rewarded with continued job security and - hocus pocus! - retroactive immunity.
They would know whole sorry affair would be papered over - "papered" in the sense of both a hurried flurry of legislation and that wonderful green goodness.
-
Mystery Solved
The MoveOn ad was terrible.
You crack me up!
It is hard to overstate how much of a priority FISA immunity is for the Bush White House, and for obvious reasons.
The whole Mukasey thing makes a lot more sense now. I can just hear the gears turning: "Sure, maybe he'll let a few of those guys in jail we've already forgotten about out, but at least he'll save our collective asses." Is there any chance he'll surprise them?
-
Re SusanMc's question
SusanMc wrote:
Is there any chance he'll surprise them?
I'd say it's unlikely, as they know what they want out of him. And even if he does surprise them, how much influece remains for Paul O'Neill, Gen. Shinseki, Richard Clarke, and on, and on.
-
Re DCLaw1's point
Sorry for all the posts here, but I want to endorse DCLaw1's point -- a very important one.
Congress cannot do what polls show the public wants -- stop the war, pass single payer healthcare, fund education, regulate banks, reduce global warming emissions -- yet shit that no one asked for sails through time and time again (like backing the war, deregulating industry, handing out tax breaks to corporations, rolling back the constitution, barring bankruptcy for borrowers, loan guarantees for liquid coal, and attacking a citizens group for making an astute, if awkward observation about an administration shill dressed up like a military man).
-
You know what is ironic here?
The Telcos would probably get away with a slap on the wrist, if that, from judges and juries if they, and Bushco, were convincing that everything was on the up and up to protect the U.S. from scary monsters and stuff. Why am I so suspicious that this is not at all the case here? What you get when there are no legal consequences are cowboys like Blackwater in Iraq, and JE Hoover and Nixon in the U.S.
No amnesty. Let every stinking lawbreaker have their day in court. Each case will be judged on the merits and extenuating circumstances individually.
-
Hacking at the branches
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau
Never did Thoreau's statement so clearly define a situation. We have all been fighting for Democratic victories, hacking at Bush and his squad of criminals, theocrats and morons. And thinking electoral victories would matter. But the politicians and media operatives you see on the news are essentially the henchmen, the branches. The root of the problem, often out of sight and striking distance, is now laid bare. The large corporate interests, who have bought and paid for both parties, and could care less which party is in power, are making the decisions. They are making an unending profit on the war and on fleesing America, and want the way cleared for them to continue to do so. It seems that this awful state we are in will continue unless a catastrophic event sweeps away the present power structure in both parties. This last happened in 1932, so don't hold your breath.