Letters to the Editor
-
Mark Twain understood the Weekly Standard crowd
Glenn quotes from The Weekly Standard:
[I]f federal agents show up at a corporate headquarters for a major American company and urgently seek that company's officers for assistance in the war on terror, the companies damn well ought to give it as a matter of simple patriotism..."
Ah yes, that now Tourettes-like invocation of that much-abused word, "patriotism," by authoritarians on the right.
If Mark Twain were alive, he would undoubtably see this as confirmation of his famous saying: "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels." (Although he would probably agree that "scoundrels" is too kind a term in the case of these proponents of tyranny.)
-
Samuel Johnson
"Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels" Samuel Johnson
-
Denning -- you're right, Johnson said it first
but, looking at the state of American political culture in the late nineteenth century, Samuel Clemmons (Mark Twain) repeated it, with a slight change, making "scoundrels" plural.
Thanks for the correction.
-
Paul R
This Is Why God Invented the Nuremberg Trials
Seriously.
Our country is so far gone, in so many sectors that nothing short of a Nuremberg-style reckoning is going to be sufficient to return us to a state of functioning normally--whatever that means.
Agreed, sadly. But Nuremberg happened with the support of the most powerful country in the world at the time (us). Who in the world has the power to force such an accounting now against the most powerful country in the world (us)? How do we get our criminals on the docket when they control almost all the weapons (literal and figurative)?
* The bill provides narrowly circumscribed immunity to companies that may have participated in the warrantless surveillance program from 9/11 until it was placed under FISA court authorization in January 2007.
Glenn, does this mean that the facts revealed in the Nacchio trial documents (that the gov't was approaching the telecoms before 9/11) may still offer us some hope?
-
Simple Patriotism
the companies damn well ought to give it as a matter of simple patriotism
He never spoke truer words than that. "Simple patriotism" is just that: simple and it is meant for the simple-minded.
On the other hand, as a matter of true patriotism, the companies ought to abide by the law of the land.
-
Pre-9/11 Telecom/Government Law busting
Glenn, does this mean that the facts revealed in the Nacchio trial documents (that the gov't was approaching the telecoms before 9/11) may still offer us some hope?
-- Pedinska
That's what I asked, directed at anyone, a few threads back.
-
Samuel Johnson Was A Mark Twain Plot
Yankee. Time travel. England. Whatever.
-
Attacking the Judiciary
Of course, the right wing has been attacking the Judicial branch for many years. They work to erode public confidence in the very idea of impartial judges making evidence based decisions.
"Activist judges legislating from the bench"
I can't wait for them to start decrying "activist legislators legislating from the legislature"
As Paul Rosenberg's quote from the Authoritarians shows, they are capable of that level of cognitive dissonance.
"whimsy of our judicial system" is probably a new low even for the weekly standard. I never doubt anymore that the very form of the US constitution is at heart a liberal enterprise. If it had been up to conservatives there would have been but one branch of government from the very start: A King.
-
Just You Wait, Henry Higgins, Just You Wait...
Pedinska:
Agreed, sadly. But Nuremberg happened with the support of the most powerful country in the world at the time (us). Who in the world has the power to force such an accounting now against the most powerful country in the world (us)?
-
About that AG confirmation hearing thing...
*The bill requires a certification to the court by the Attorney General that the company's participation was pursuant to a written request or directive of the Attorney General or intelligence agency head or deputy head and was part of program authorized by the President and determined to be lawful
(emphasis mine)
Kinda paints an ugly picture of the Senate's current willingness to rubber stamp another administration yes man for the AG position, no?
-
How is this Constitutional?
I can't believe it just keeps getting worse.
I was in New York on 9/11 and that night - going to sleep in Brooklyn - my Russian girlfriend asked me what if I was scared. I said, "Yeah, but not mainly of the terrorists. I'm afraid of how people will react." She starting going on about how great America is and how America's would never sacrfice their freedoms and America wasn't like Russia. I just said. "Well, we like to talk about freedom and rights. Now, we'll see if people really believe in them. Or understand what they mean."
Here's a question, Glen. How can this law itself withstand judicial scrutiny? How can it block lawsuits? This law - like the actions the suits challenge - couldn't be anymore unconstitutional if it said, "We hereby overturn the 4th Amendment." Shouldn't the new law be throw out by the courts?
Seriously, help me understand this.
-
Truly anti-American
I used to think this debate was in the "reasonable people can disagree" category but I'm starting to believe conservatives are literally anti-American. If they really mean this stuff then they don't believe in democracy or our system of government. They honestly in their heart of hearts would rather have a single-branch government headed by an all-powerful executive. I don't know where to even start to engage that mindset....
Thoughts on the Police State Telecoms:
http://pruningshears.squarespace.com/pruning-shears/att-the-new-enron.html
-
Nacchio
Glenn, does this mean that the facts revealed in the Nacchio trial documents (that the gov't was approaching the telecoms before 9/11) may still offer us some hope?
Clearly, amnestly, at least in the bill's current incarnation, doesn't cover pre-9/11 spying. But it's unclear how specific and reliable the Nacchio claims are. I don't know that he can say that AT&T and Verizon and others began cooperating with warrantless surveillance pre-9/11. EFF and the other lawyers would need some evidentiary basis to allege that. From what I understand (and I could be wrong), the basis for EFF's suit -- Mark Klein's documentation and testimony -- is from post-9/11.
It would be a complicated issue to figure out of these suits could allege that the telecoms enabled illegal spying pre-9/11. I don't know the answer. But clearly, if they could, amnesty would not cover that.