Letters to the Editor
-
@ Glenn
Lighten up. I was just pointing out that the maladministration often "argues in the alternative" or worse; arguing mutually contradictory positions in different venues (and Mukasey's venue here is the court of public opinion), and that judges that are not Dubya flacks will use common sense and whack the behinds of any lawyers that try to put forth such an argument as that the events in question weren't statutory "electronic surveillance" so that the entirety of FISA doesn't even apply (should the maladministration actually do so in court).
They win the "debates" when they're just "arguing" amongst themselves, putting together whatever carefully parsed memoranda that will justify their desired course of action (see, .e.g, their torture arguments [and for a couple new outrages, click my sig]). But common sense applied to their "opinions" (which carry not a whole lot more legal authority than mine, in the end) generally exposes their wordplay and strained "interpretations" for what they are.
Or it could be that Mukasey here was just lying. AGs do that too nowadays....
Cheers,
-
No coincidence
I don't think relevant story is that Michael Mukasey is the same as Alberto Gonzales. Rather, it's that George W. Bush is the same as George W. Bush.
-
OT for Ondelette and RMP
There's an interesting new article in this month's Prospect by Stephen Kotkin, Myth of the New Cold War.
Ondelette, Kotkin is writing about Russia, not China, but he makes some of the same points I'd been making in our recent discussion about the reasonableness, or lack of it, in the Chinese Communist Party's foreign policy. Specifically, he calls for a less hostile view toward Russia's current leadership, and attributes that hostility to a cranky Puritanism in America's view of foreign rivals which -- as we all know -- goes back a long way.
Also, RMP, Kotkin notes some of the same potential for a more stable multipolar world that I speculated about in our exchange on the subject. We may be headed toward 1914, particularly if the PNAC/Cheney axis continues to have its way with us, but we don't need to be, presuming they can be stopped.
(It's always nice when you read something by someone in the biz which resonates with your own line of thinking -- hence my bringing it up now, even though it's OT.)
The link to the article (free to non-subscribers) is at my sig.
-
One Other Thought....
A commenter posted a few weeks ago his/her experiences as an employee of, I believe, AT&T.
The central thrust of the post was the extent to which protecting customers' privacy was absolutely central to not just the legal obligations under the Telecommunications Act of 1934, but to the intrinsic corporate culture of the company. Breaches of privacy weren't just a firing offense, but an unconscionable betrayal of the trust placed by the government in such a powerful monopoly with such formidable power to rob Americans of their most private communications.
Like the US attorney who wrote "Bush League Justice," this former employee was not just angry, but deeply ashamed and insulted at the depths to which his/her former employer would plummet under Bushism.
I know that this concept of betrayal doesn't easily fit into a sound bite, but it emphasizes how demoralizing it is, and how new, that once proud organizations have abandoned the public interest, sullied their own reputations, and profited from joining the police state, while emphasizing that corporations aren't always evil, but under Bush they must become so.
Perhaps a brief reference, contained in a subordinate clause, that says, "these companies, who once took pride in guarding the privacy of their customers, now are paid to betray it."
For promises of amnesty, which in Bush-speak has become "immunity."
-
Again, @LWM
It's obviously bunk. Journalists, not soldiers, fought for our right to free speech. And as for the armed forces defending our "freedoms" ... I can't think of a single case of this post-War of 1812. Can anyone here?
I gave you an example of it post WWII. Please don't tell me you are going to argue WWII was an unnecessary use of American military force that didn't protect these liberties for Americans here and abroad and even for other nation's citizens. Let's leave the Civil War and WWI out of it for now. If you are going to argue that case, please provide some evidence. Are you one of those who claim that FDR goaded Japan and Germany into WWII?
If I meant that, I would have said that. I'm not going to provide evidence for an argument I'm not making.
Certainly the war of the Allies against the Axis protected the rights of "other nation's citizens" and those of Americans abroad." So what? How does that answer my question, which had to do with American rights---let me clarify, on American soil?
When did Hitler or Tojo ever actually threaten American citizens' rights within the US? Do you see what I'm driving at?
It's a myth that the US armed forces, in practice, primarily protect Americans' "rights and freedoms." Except, of course, the freedom to do as we please in other countries, but that's not what I meant.
-
An excellent thought, C-Hag
I remember that comment, too -- it really impressed me. Your proposed addendum is brilliant; I do hope it finds its way into the finished ad.
-
Re: Glenn
The whole point of highlighting the fact that Mukasey worked as Chief Judge just a mile away from the WTC (as the NY Sun article I quoted did) is to suggest that he has some special moral authority, or is speaking from a particularly informed personal place, in demanding these things. But the vast, vast majority of people who lived and worked near the 9/11 attacks see it exactly the opposite way.
Okay (so long as you're not arguing that what the 'vast, vast majority' of Manhattanites thinks is especially probative), but don't you think you're too bright to be picking on the NY Sun for a living? Media outlets like the Sun, or Fox News, or to a lesser extent MSNBC, just exist to confirm the simplistic views of certain segments of the market. Trenchant analysis isn't their line. And it seems particularly pointless given that the people who read you don't read the NY Sun or watch much Fox, so I don't know who it is that you think you're going to help. Most of your readership, judging by the comments at least, agrees with you on pretty much everything but prostitution.