Letters to the Editor
-
What I've heard a number of people say about this
Many of my right wing acquaintances -- usually the ones who were apoplectic about Clinton's abuse of power -- say that we still have complete checks on the Executive's power, in two ways: The Congress can vote to change the laws, taking the power given in, say, the Patriot Act, away from the Executive; or, the people can vote the Executive out. But absent that, the Executive has every right to do whatever it can get away with. This last sentiment extends only to "national security" issues, of course. If the Executive were using these powers to enable universal health care or some such, these people would be howling with rage.
-
The Oath of Office
GG ably cites back to the origins of the Constitution's separation of powers, premised as they are upon recognition that without checks against unilateral action, we cannot hope for a balanced government.
On this note, I was -- well, stunned is too strong a word, considering the source, but -- truly amazed that Bush could stand in front of cameras yesterday and endorse McCain with the statement that McCain "understands that his oath of office requires him to protect Americans". This is flatly untrue, of course, because the President's oath of office requires the President to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This is not an accident. The oath is the way the Constitution gets implemented, for goodness sake. Only if the President is committed to allowing the Constitution's emphasis upon checks and balances and the rule of law can our country succeed; where, as is self-evidently here, the President acts out of a belief that implementation of the subjective views of the Executive is the President's highest goal and Constitutional obligation, the rule of law is gone and the rule of men supplants it.
I was indeed shocked, shocked to find that NSA letters are still being abused [or that there's gambling at Rick's Cafe]. But juxtaposed with Bush's vapid reference to the "President's Oath of Office" -- after all, it can't be like none of this has ever been mentioned in his presence -- it is so very plain that impeachment must be pursued.
I continue to wait for serious comment from either Clinton or Obama about Bush's disregard for the United States Constitution. Not a sound bite, an exposition. There really are people in this country who would care. I would hate to believe that Nader's assessment of the Republicans and the Democrats is true and there is no material difference -- but as the Dems prepare to cave on FISA yet again and nobody dares to actually challenge the President over anything he is doing, that is looking like a serious possibility.
-
without precedent?
I have friends who agree that things are bad, but insist our current situation is merely the normal swinging of the political pendulum.
I think not, and I think you have put your finger on the difference. The normal movement is resisted by gravitational forces from the press and other branches. Those forces no longer exist. And I don't see a comparable episode in our history -- The Japanese internment cases and WWI-era freedom of speech cases seem quaint by comparison.
The election of Barack or Hillary would miraculously replace that missing force, but I am not convince either will be allowed to occur. (The fixing of the election may sound tinfoil-hattish, but the Rubicon on such illegality and immorality was crossed long ago.)
Glenn, your relocation to the southern hemisphere is looking quite prescient. I may not be far behind you.
-
Off Topic but:
Among things that piss me off:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ia2BgoXMP31noJgDf74W3U7Hr4kAD8V80BN00
Like the fires in Seattle, what we have is morons providing a free pass to any and all abusive activity by the government.
After all, if domestic groups engage in "terrorism" then spying on domestic groups is fully justified and all this FISA debate is just a waste of time.
Of course I'm reminded that in the sixties, the people most inclined to incite violence were the FBI plants.
Hmmmmm......
-
What democracy?
Bush insists he's fighting for democracy every time somebody criticizes him for the Iraqi war, surveillance, water-boarding, supporting Ethiopian militia in Somalia, the list goes on. What sort of warped idea of democracy does he have in mind?? And what sort of a government points fingers at oppressive regimes and corrupt officials of other countries and still allows its president to wield unchecked power? Both parties have again and again disappointed not only Americans, but the world as a whole. America is kidding itself, there's no way that it can convince other nations to become more democratic when the very poster boy of the "democratic interventionist" is denying civil liberties to its own citizens. And with all of this controversy surfacing during an election year, the message is clear: parliamentary democracy is boring, but also functional.
-
What democracy?
Bush insists he's fighting for democracy every time somebody criticizes him for the Iraqi war, surveillance, water-boarding, supporting Ethiopian militia in Somalia, the list goes on. What sort of warped idea of democracy does he have in mind?? And what sort of a government points fingers at oppressive regimes and corrupt officials of other countries and still allows its president to wield unchecked power? Both parties have again and again disappointed not only Americans, but the world as a whole. America is kidding itself, there's no way that it can convince other nations to become more democratic when the very poster boy of the "democratic interventionist" is denying civil liberties to its own citizens. And with all of this controversy surfacing during an election year, the message is clear: parliamentary democracy is boring, but also functional.
-
Questions
Glenn,
As always, another great post here and another morning where I want to vomit from all of this. I've been following your analysis of FISA/Protect America and the wussy way in which Congressional Democrats keep giving in to Bush and the Republicans. And, I agree with you and several commentators that, perhaps, Repubs and Dems aren't really all that different from one another. They're both power-hungry and only interested in maintaining the status quo (as is the MSM). My only question is, are the Dems star struck? Are they only going along with all of these executive power shifts and increased surveillance because they think they will win the election and will be in a position to take advantage of these powers? They're not interested in pursuing impeachment hearings or finding out who, what, where and when Bush authorized torture, warrentless spying, etc., etc.... because, they think winning the 2008 election will be a lay-up on a three-foot rim, and then they can enjoy the same unchecked powers? Do the rightwingers see this? Do they worry at all that Hillary or Obama may have the same unchecked powers that Bush has enjoyed for 8 years? Or, are they confident that, should Hillary/Obama beat McCain, that, unlike Congressional Dems, Congressional Repubs will vote right down party lines to overturn those powers? Or, are they so confident that McCain will win, that they're not concerned? Or, do they think it's OK for any president, Dem or Repub, to have these powers, because they'll be able to listen in on Bin Laden and stop the terrorists?