Off the Deep End
by Scott Shields, Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 08:33:58 AM EST
. . .
...an open debate about law would say to the enemy, "Here's what we're going to do."
. . .
Again, any public hearings on programs will say to the enemy, "Here's what they do. Adjust."
In other words, everyone needs to shut up and let the executive branch break the law, and if they don't, they're committing treason. No one is asking the President to talk about specifics, so the premise is total garbage, that his critics are somehow trying to force a public debate about each and every phone call the White House wants to listen in on. The debate here is about an ongoing policy. To say that exposure of this program somehow tipped off terrorists that American intelligence may be listening in on their phone calls is to assume that Al Qaeda was somehow unaware of FISA wiretaps. That is patently ridiculous.
There was apparently a lot of laughter during the press conference, according to the transcript. Call me stodgy, but I don't think there's too much humor to be found in extralegal wiretaps, the war in Iraq, or Hurricane Katrina. That said, there was one bit of Bush's press conference that did make me chuckle. Bush tells "an amazing story" about the nascent Iraqi democracy.
We had people, first-time voters -- or voters in the Iraqi election come in to see me in the Oval. They had just voted that day and they came in. It was exciting to talk to people.And one person said, "How come you're giving Saddam Hussein a trial?"
I said, "First of all, it's your government, not ours."
She said, "He doesn't deserve a trial. You know, he deserves immediate death for what he did to my people."
And it just struck me about how strongly she felt about the need to not have a rule of law, that there needed to be quick retribution, that he didn't deserve it.
And I said to her, "Don't you see that the trial itself stands in such contrast to the tyrant that that in itself is a victory for freedom and a defeat for tyranny, just the trial alone, and it's important that there be rule of law?"
It's amazing to me that there can be such a disconnect in Bush's own head about this. He asks how an Iraqi cannot understand that "it's important that there be rule of law" while simultaneously arguing that the rule of law does not apply to him when it comes to domestic wiretaps. Like I said, it gave me a chuckle, but it really isn't funny.
At the end of the day, this is a matter of law. The President decided that he needed to circumvent the law in order to fight his war on terror the way he wanted to. That is a fact. Some Bush supporters will say the President didn't break any laws. That is a lie. Some Bush supporters will say that was within the President's authority to break the law. That too is a lie. The only matter up for debate now is whether the President should be held to account for usurping dictatorial powers in wartime. Some will say that he should not. I say that those people have forfeited their right to ever talk about "freedom,""democracy," or "liberty" in this or any other country around the world ever again.
Tags: Republicans (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
18 Comments