Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
We only have to change two words from Jackson's closing address at Nuremburg to make it clear that we're moving toward a presidential dictatorship -- exactly what the Constitution was established to avoid:
"One of the chief reasons the defendants say there was no conspiracy is the argument that conspiracy was impossible with a dictator. The argument runs that they all had to obey Bush's orders, which had the force of law in the American State, and hence obedience could not be made the basis of an original charge."
"We're focused on the future."-- Mort Kondrake
Well, that certainly explains the Bush administration's hands-off policy on Osama Bin Laden.
The total failure of the Obama administration to hold anyone accountable for anything will speak louder than words. As you say, it will declare to the planet that this country has not, does not, and will not abide by any law of any land even it's own. I actually look forward to that time. It will, at least, show that we will admit to being a nation of war criminals even if we fail to do a damn thing about it. Confession is good for the soul, yes?
The REAL value would be in having these people confronted and being forced to explicitly delineate for the audience EXACTLY what they were doing. And I know just the man I'd nominate to do it...
@GG - I'm hesitant to ask, but did I get deleted (the sanction/oversight comment)yesterday? For being O/T too early, maybe? If I knew why, I'd try harder to avoid it in the future.
At what point in time did America shift to acceptance of “only following orders”? I mean, the campy “I vas only following ze orders” was always, always a goofball lampoon response to such a suggested excuse… until when? Why do today's Beltway "pundits" think it's persuasive or even morally acceptable to say otherwise now?
Even Hollywood depictions of governmental illegality have generally and consistently “toed the line” of the Rule of Law. In A Few Good Men, the impassioned speech of Col. Jessop (“you want me on that wall/you need me on that wall/you can’t handle the truth!) ends up with him arrested for the homicide his illegal order caused. In the Bourne movies, the villain isn’t offed, Jason Bourne and the CIA outsider turn the bad guys over to Congress for hearings. And in The West Wing, the President actually orders the assassination of a “clearly bad” terrorist dude – but the story line is that all involved in the decision acknowledge that if it becomes public knowledge, they will be going to jail; they implicitly make the decision that they will take that rap if they get caught, because they believe it is the right, albeit illegal, action to take. Where are such principles -- acceptance of Law as important and accountability as necessary -- in today’s debate?
It certainly seems that these “no remorse/no accountability” arguments we are hearing now have their sole origin in the pathetic presumption that “9/11 changed everything”. But if by “changed everything”, it is meant to be suggested that this includes the core principles of this country – the Rule of Law, the allocation of powers and the government's rights and obligations provided in the United States Constitution, the adherence to principles of international treaties governing war crimes – then, as recently-nominated OLC chief Dawn Johnson so eloquently expressed in the video clip being circulated this week, the terrorists have won and we have lost.
The reality is that while 9/11 may have gotten the Bush Administration’s attention, nothing in the run-up to the 9/11 disaster was the “fault” of “defects” in our system of government. Quite simply, the Bush Administration ignored plenty of existing intelligence, all obtained without torture or massive illegal wiretapping or suspension of habeas corpus or extraordinary renditions to torturing partners. The fact that the intelligence was ignored does not justify jettisoning the existing frameworks, purely and simply. Now we are supposed to listen to how the Bush Administration has “kept us safe since 9/11” and that is supposed to serve as a justification for jettisoning the structure of our freedoms and an excuse for flagrantly and undeniably illegal actions by Bush and those following Bush’s illegal orders?
Where would we be if Germany’s response to the Allied firebombing of Dresden had been to torture every POW to death? Do we really advocate a right to torture – or to ignore the United States Constitution and statutes declaring warrantless wiretapping to be a felony -- because two buildings in New York were destroyed in a sneak attack? And that nobody involved in such conduct is subject to the Rule of Law, not even to the point of having to explain why their personal conduct should be punished less harshly because their role in the process was demanded by a superior officer?
Thank you, Glenn, for laying out the framework of the fundamental principles of civilized society that our “leader class” is currently so intent upon defiling. There is no excuse for offering such excuses, and quoting their arguments next to the text of such principles ought to shame and humiliate any pundit or “Serious” person willing to advocate such vile and cowardly excuses.
Anytime a supposed terrorist threat is uncovered -- anywhere in the world -- the US claims their intelligence tools helped uncover the plot. If memory serves, those claims proved to be untrue or the plots turned to be less nefarious than first thought. Aside from the fact that, as others have pointed out, the govt has not pointed to any specific domestic plots that have been interrupted, why didn't rendition, torture and carte blanche international surveillance prevent the numerous successful terrorist attacks around the world since 9/11?
At least since nixon, the republicans were pushing the absolute presidential power BS. He was rebuffed finally by a whistle-blower. Under reagan, the crap continued with Iran-contra as one of the most obvious examples. They KNEW they were breaking the law, but that was OK since they were doing what was good for the country regardless of what the stupid congress thought. Getting away with as much as they did, it's no wonder w idolized reagan and nixon.
9/11 was the opening they needed to walk all over the constitution. Wielding fear as a weapon, most citizens of the US were easily corralled into accepting anything and everything as good for them. How else to explain that so many of the principles we purportedly stood for are now considered dangerous to our existence?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
