18 January 2006

The President cannot simply violate criminal laws behind closed doors because he deems them obsolete or impracticable

I really was stunned to hear a radio talk host defend the practice of illegal wiretapping based on the notion that the U.S. has not been attacked in the same fashion that occurred on 9/11/01. Pushing aside, for a moment, distressing concerns of accountability — without public record of who/what was being tracked, secret electronic eavesdropping serves as a powerful device to tarnish agents of political opposition, curtail any criticism of unjust executive branch actions, stifle whisteblowers and wickedly twists justice to suit purely partisan goals — I find the sentiment that safety should nullify constitutional freedoms extremely troublesome.

It would be akin to arguing for a complete ban of any firearms, as the statistics are clear that in nations where such stricter gun control is in effect, the homicide rate is significantly lower than in the U.S.. Along the same line, supporting a comprehensive implementation of an all inclusive Orwellian style surveillence program to ensure nobody would ever be subjected to violent assaults wouldn't require much of a logical leap. We do possess the technology to accomplish such a program, even if it would be an expensive implementation. Now, I am not arguing for either of these proposals, and in fact, abhor the sacrifice of freedom for the sake of safety.

Regarding the Bush adminstration's usurpation of the Constitution, here are some thoughts from a real conservative and reaction to a recent speech by Al Gore on the matter.

The New York Times ownership suppressed for one year the leaked information in the paper's possession that the Bush administration was violating the Foreign Intelligence Services Act and was spying on Americans without court warrants. Had the New York Times not placed a gag in its reporter's mouth and suppressed the story, Bush may have gone down in defeat as the new Richard M. Nixon. Clearly, the New York Times is failing the obligations of a free press.

Bush is angry at the New York Times and at the government officials who leaked the story that Bush illegally spied on American citizens. Both may be prosecuted for making Bush's illegal behavior public. By ignoring Gore's speech, is the New York Times signaling to Bush that the newspaper is willing to be a lap dog in exchange for not being prosecuted?

With the US media now highly concentrated in a few corporate hands, has the Democratic Party reached the conclusion that opposition is no longer possible?

Once Bush places Sam Alito on the Supreme Court, he will have a high court majority friendly to his claims that his executive powers are not constrained by congressional statutes or judicial rulings. Once a president is held to be above the law, whether for reasons of his role as commander-in-chief or any other, he can no longer be held accountable.

Conservatives should fear this more than anyone. The separation of powers and our civil liberties are our most precious property rights. They are our patrimony from the Founding Fathers. We are stewards of these rights, which we hold in trust for our descendants. How can any conservative fail to realize that Bush's attack on these rights is the ultimate attack on property? It is astonishing to watch conservatives wave the flag while they are transformed into subjects to be dealt with as presidential authority decides.

Nothing is going to be done done about it by Congress, because, we are now in the grip of a one party state, where allegiance to an imperial presidency is a bigger priority than adhering to the supreme law of the land.

It's also alluded in neoconservative circles all about the New York Times liberal bent, but yet the Times sat on this story for over a year, and as Mr. Roberts noted, did not devote any coverage to a challenging speech from a presidential candidate with the most votes in the 2000 election (and also the candidate, if a full recount would have been conducted, that would have tallied the most votes in Florida too).

Comments

Well, the lefties have their scripts hardened for this one with their talk of a GWB dictatorship, the Constitution in shreds, unbounded power grabs, illegal wiretaps, etc. All predictable. However, ol' Bob is struggling with this one. My position is they better not be tapping my phone and emails but if they monitor an overseas phone call based on a well intentioned belief valuable intelligence can be obtained that prevents bad shit then OK. I believe, for what its worth, GWBs primary motivation is the safety of Americans because 9/11 happened on his watch. It doesn't mean I'm not concerned about the surveillence but the posting is overboard. Although there's a lot about this we don't know, may never know, and may not want to know, I'm certain there's more info coming. PS Any Presidential candidate that can't carry his own state should shut up permanently. And, no less than the NYT did recount the Florida vote but didn't get the result they wanted.