Thursday, January 12, 2006

Greenwald on Spygate

This question he asks of Bush apologists on Spygate:

Are there any limitations at all on what the President can do under the guise of national security and, if so, what are they? And, given this theory of the "wartime" President who can violate the laws of Congress and who can ignore the courts in areas of national security, what legal foundation could exist to argue for any such limitations?


An open invitation to any Bush supporters to share their thoughts in response. We're all interested.

6 Thoughts:

Blogger Demotiki said...

The biggest red-herring in this whole debate is that the Congressional Authorization for War gave the President powers that the Constitution didn't give him. As anyone who has taken high school civics can tell you, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No law passed by Congress can superceed the Fourth Ammendment. Only a fool would argue so. Evidently there are plenty of fools since I keep seeing them on the television.

What more proof do we need that the corporate media is actively working to destroy our democratic traditions and institutions? The President has admitted on national television that he violated the law and the Constitution he swore to uphold, and yet CNN, MSNBC and Fox all treat this as a point for punditry. There is no debate. The law is clear and the Constitution is clear. Any response other than, "he should be impeached immediately" is anti-democratic.

I saw this Afro-American guy on CNN, author of "black in the white house." He actually made the rediculous argument that the Fourth Ammd. only protects us from "unreasonable" searches. He went on to say that if the President feels a search is "reasonable" then he has the power to ignore the constitutional requirements that have applied for well over 200 years. Wolff didn't even bat an eye, he just kept rolling along with the teleprompter.

What we really need is for a few of these really well known anchors to come out and tell us about how the news is directed by the big corporations. If Wolff or someone like him said, "take this job and shove it," and then started blogging about the corporate media, maybe it would make a dent. However, careerism is destroying America. People who get as high up as Wolff have no morals, otherwise they would be working in the mail room.

Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:40:00 PM  
Anonymous z said...

I found this article linked on Huffington.

http://www.slate.com/id/2134206/

It talks about how Bush and all are ready to welcome talk about their NSA program because they feel that the American people are supportive of the idea of domestic spying as a means of catching terrorists.

I think there is some truth to that idea, the administration has spent so much time convincing us that the bogeyman is everywhere that many people are willing to put up with just about anything in order to keep the monster at bay.

However, the average-Joe, die-hard Southern Republicans that I know are a proud lot. For the most part they are honorable and have a healthy respect for the law.

I think that Pawlr hit the nail on the head with a comment he made on an earlier post. He stated, "First they [The Republicans] get so frightened of terrorism that they toss away their liberties like it was yesterday's trash."

If the Democrats were to approach the argument from two angles...

1.) It was against the law, if Bush didn't like the law then he needed to attempt to change it rather than skirt around it.

And 2.) It is cowardly to throw away freedoms because we are afraid of terrorists and because we are at war. It is time to stop being afraid and start acting with a cool head.

I think it might actually touch a nerve with some folks who would otherwise support Bush in whatever he does. Southerners don't like dishonorable people and they don't like being looked upon as cowards. The problem is making them see past the Bush red herrings and into the actual issues.

Friday, January 13, 2006 4:35:00 PM  
Blogger pawlr said...

Z, your 2 points of advice for Dems aren't simply convincing, they have the added benefit of being true.

The violent extremists who attacked us on 9/11 are not in any way a threat to our "way of life" if we acknowledge (as Europe has) that 100% security is not possible. We should do more to protect our borders and cities, and build up our intelligence as much as the law allows, but its utterly childish of voters to believe that Bush-Daddy-Father can protect us 100% from death by rampaging around the globe battling evil. I realized this on the morning after 9/11.

And we're actually acting at cross-purposes traipsing the globe looking for tangental conflicts that will only make things worse and us more of a target. "Sting the tiger" works as a global strategy as well as a guerrilla tactic. Its perenially amazing to me how Bin Laden, who would otherwise be a piece of shit dirtbag nobody, has wound up playing the neocons like a fiddle and provoking the U.S. into proving his point that we're essentially an immoral empire.

Saturday, January 14, 2006 10:52:00 AM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

I agree with both of you. I really like the angle of "coward neocons" are ready to give up the farm Constitutionally to cover their sorry asses.

"Sting the Tiger" is exactly what they are doing. Of course, we need to defuse the Repubican counter argument which is, "we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here."

Maybe some Republicans are good people at heart, I don't know. However, I think it's pretty clear that from 20-40% of any country's population is willing to accept fascism for reasons that are not entirely clear. I nearly got into a fight with a guy in a bar the other day who's basic argument was that once the President won the election, he had the right to suspend the Constitution and declare himself king. To make things worse, he was a law student.

Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:54:00 AM  
Anonymous z said...

So, I have a question. Suppose our representatives pull their heads out and actually move forward with impeachment. Then what? I want Cheney in office even less than I want Bush. Can we just impeach the entire cabinet?

Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:15:00 PM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

We "could" impeach whoever has violated the law. However, there's no way the current House would draft the Articles of Impeachment, or the Senate convict. We would have to gain a landslide victory and take back both chambers to even have a shadow of a chance. That's exactly why the Administration is so gung-ho. They know they are above the law with control of the House and Senate.

Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:42:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home