Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

All the President's Confessions

By G. Pascal Zachary, AlterNet. Posted December 23, 2005.


Bush's advocacy of lawlessness lies at the heart of the right-wing agenda to remake America.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by G. Pascal Zachary

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Bush's statement last Saturday that he ordered domestic spying, knowing it was possibly against the law to do so, was an astonishing confession in the annals of American history -- and the defining moment of Bush's tortured presidency. Why, after all, would the president open himself to the possibility, however remote, of an impeachment proceeding?

If American presidents stand for anything, it is deniability. This is the prime directive of presidential authority. More than 50 years ago, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who invented the Imperial Presidency and presided over the country during World War II, avoided leaving a paper trail of his most sensitive decisions. Even his order to build an atomic weapon was vague. "O.K. - FDR" is the only surviving record of his ever having granted authority for what turned out to be the most expensive and secretive project in American history.

Later presidents also took pains to make sure they were in a position to deny knowledge of executive actions clearly outside the law. President Eisenhower would not admit to flying spy planes over the Soviet Union at the height of Cold War hysteria in the late 1950s, even though his Democratic opponents were making false accusations about Russian capabilities to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons. President Kennedy kept a safe distance from secret plots to kill Cuban leader Castro (unsuccessful) and South Vietnamese president Diem (successful). President Johnson approved the fabrication of evidence that led the U.S. Congress to authorize a wider war in Southeast Asia.

None of these presidents ever admitted that their actions had broken the law.

Not even President Nixon, at the height of Watergate, admitted to breaking the law. Nor did Bill Clinton, who was a master of denial. He denied "inhaling" pot, he denied fellatio was real sex, he denied the Whitewater allegations.

Indeed, presidents past have denied breaking the law, even when they have, because following the law is their prime directive, their sole basis for democratic legitimacy. In political theory, the executive is a hybrid creature, part enlightened monarch and part accountable leader. The executive is free to act on the basis of his or her conscience -- the enlightened monarch -- but he or she must do so subject to laws approved by a legitimate independent body, on which the executive's accountability rests.

The need for a balance between executive action and democratic accountability was crucial to the creators of the American republic in the late 18th century. Until then, the democratic movements in Europe had succeeded only in subjecting monarchs to certain limits, such as "the power of the purse" in England. In the U.S., the president would be circumscribed by law. This was the great invention of American political practice, even more so than the idea of federalism, which enabled different states of the union to manage their affairs differently.

Because rule of law is fundamental to the moral basis of the presidency, presidents must even uphold laws they don't agree with. Indeed, the willingness of presidents to do so is their defining trait. In this regard, presidents are unlike other citizens. They do not have the option to perform acts of civil disobedience. They cannot argue, in essence, that their conscience does not allow them to abide by the law.

Why then is President Bush insisting on his duty, and even his right, to disregard the laws covering domestic spying, laws that demand the government seek a judge's authority before spying on Americans on American soil?

One explanation, of course, is that Bush hopes to find that he actually possesses the legal authority to unilaterally spy on his own citizens. The chances of him constructing a compelling case for this power, however, seem slim. He is not surrounded by great legal minds, and the consensus among constitutional scholars is clear. As Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, told the New York Times on Wednesday, "The president's authorizing of the N.S.A. to spy on Americans is blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

G. Pascal Zachary is the author of Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century, a biography of FDR's science adviser and architect of the Manhattan Project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
EJW
Posted by: EJW on Dec 23, 2005 3:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
YeeHaw. My di**, opps excuse me, My gun is bigger than your gun wins again. What is this maddness? They really do believe their own lies. This is psychosis!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

40 years of war
Posted by: ws on Dec 23, 2005 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush Administration is just the culmination of 40 years of warfare the radical right has been waging against the American people. While all administrations have lied, not even Nixon can approach the levels of Bush.

Radical Right

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the BUSHITLER AMERIKAN REICH
Posted by: Bushhater on Dec 23, 2005 4:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George W. really is the bastard son of the Nazi fuhrer and his successor. The Nazi regime has been resuscitated and transplanted to the USA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Bush Administration and Carl Schmitt
Posted by: citizenjoe on Dec 23, 2005 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Few Americans know of Carl Schmitt, "the crown jurist of the Third Reich" as he is called today in Germany. He is well studied in Germany. Schmitt was the theorist of exceptional authority, ruling with a constitution in place but with authority to disregard it in order to protect society and the state. Schmitt articulated the legal foundations of fascism in general. The Bush administration is knowingly following the program of Carl Schmitt. That is why Bush openly claims authority to go beyond the law and the Constitution. The Neo-cons were students of Leo Strauss, one of Schmitt’s great admirers and followers. The Neo cons are neo fascist and so is the Bush regimes’ treatment of the law and the Constitution. This is a fact, not silly name calling. Too bad Americans do not and never have understood what fascism is. Schmitt understood it well and the Bush regime does too. The USA today is ruled by fascists and Americans have no idea whatsoever about what is going on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

god's law
Posted by: menckenman on Dec 23, 2005 4:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Secular laws mean nothing to a semi-literate Bible belt south and midwest. Hell, it wasn't so long ago we were hysterically hanging witches. The bible-befuddled booboise all eagerly embrace an inquisition including secrecy, spying, torture, and on behalf of spreading their brand of righteousness across the world, that burning fire Bush talks about that's gonna light up the dark places of evil and tyranny.

What's a few liberal pansy-asses gonna do about it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: god's law Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: god's law Posted by: agamemnon2004
» RE: Wrong! Posted by: harpy
The consequences of delusional thinking-God as his co-pilot
Posted by: kencohen on Dec 23, 2005 5:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This president has delusional beliefs of being chosen by God to free the world of evil. Bush admits that God speaks to him and directs his actions. Therefore, his delusional thinking places him safely above laws of mere mortals. He feels free to confess his actions since God will stand by his side and assure that Bush prevails.
Pre-emptive, unilateral invasions of sovereign nations, torture, deceptively manipulating the media, and finally transcending Constitutional law were all sanctioned by God. Who are we to question??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Possible treason.
Posted by: tcx2 on Dec 23, 2005 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Washington Post has an article where Tom Daschle, one of the recipients of the 2001 Anthrax attack, says:

"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."

If Tom has proof, which he likely does in the form of Senate records, then I think we have that "smoking gun" against his take on the NSA and further proof Congress explicitly limited his power to nations outside the US. This, I imagine, will be quite serious and could take the entire White House down.

"U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Also, this editorial gives a nice background into who these neo-conservatives really are. These people are insanely zealous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Possible treason. Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Possible treason. Posted by: tcx2
» RE: Possible treason. Posted by: EncinoM
The President's Confession
Posted by: dagumpster on Dec 23, 2005 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I couldn't quite figure out if it was okay to flaunt the law provided you never admit to it. It sounded to me as there was praise for breaking the law provided you are clever enough to hide it and not admit it. This is partially the main media's fault. The main media has elevated the status of the presidency. They hang on every word and action and act as a propaganda tool for the presidency. They are fearful of losing their White House pass and seat on Air Force One. They agree with scripted press briefings. If the press started asking the real tough questions and many times embarrassing ones then the leaders ego would not grow so big they think they are a law unto them selves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

impeach
Posted by: liberalibrarian on Dec 23, 2005 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is time for Americans to put a stop to this Tombstone-style rule and demand investigation, legal recourse and if the law weighs in favor--impeachment. It is too important, not only for ourselves, but for our children, who will be left with nothing to avail themselves of legally to stop complete Right-Wing (yes, let us call it capitalistic fascism) from destroying the United States and throwing them all into a post-modern serfdom. We have lived in a dangerous world (remember the "Cold War"?) for decades--there is no reason to start spying on Americans (without court order--good grief--it's not like he couldn't do it at all). If we do not use the full powers of the people's right to law now, then when? What next?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: impeach Posted by: xs10shal
Let's learn a new dance
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Dec 23, 2005 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PLATFORM of the People Over Tyrants Party O/K/A The P.O.T. Party

Because of the current trends in National and Foreign Policy and the many and varied forms of tyranny our people are being exposed to,we have formed from the People, a Party, that is For the People. This is our
vision of how we get the Country back for the People,restore our Liberty,Freedom,and Peace,here and now.
NO MORE WARS.
This country has 'made' the enemies we now face through corrupt policy in the name of 'Profits'.
We would cease all weapons sales,development and deployment.
Close all bases on foriegn soils,begin TOTAL DISARMAMENT with pacts of Non- Aggression.
END ALL BLACK PROJECTS FUNDING. Disband the C.I.A., Homeland Security,and the DEA.
All monies would be 'redirected' to Free Education for ALL People, K- Grad School.
PROTECT THE EARTH
Restore the 'Roadless' Laws in perpituity.Ban clear cut forestry operations. End logging in the National Forests. 1,000 year moritorium on mining. Restore the Great Lakes and rivers.
Force Industry to be 'inert' environmentally, Force Auto Industry to make High Mileage Hybred cars and trucks.EXTREME CONTROLS on pesticides and fretilizers and emmissions.
Heavy reliance on Solar,Wind, Hydro Generation, Hemp and other Biomass fuels for charcoal.
STOP DRILLING IN THE ANWR. Force Oil Companies to RESTORE IMPACTED AREAS.
PUT THE MONEY BACK IN THE PEOPLE'S HANDS
Freeze all Transportation Fuels and Utility prices for ten years. Extendable if deemed so by the People.
END COMPOUND INTREST RATES on loans,mortgages and small business loans.
FORGIVE ALL DEBTS. End Property Tax on ALL VETERAN'S personal homes.
CUT DEFENSE 60%, fund FULL HEALTHCARE and ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Non Deductable/Refundable 90% TAX The WEALTHIEST PEOPLE and BUSINESSES.
Make SOCIAL SECURITY an ALWAYS FUNDED Program
GIVE food stamps to all Low Imcome Families.
GETTING POWER TO THE PEOPLE
PARDON ALL VICTIMLESS,NON-VIOLENT OFFENDERS.
PARDON ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS
MAKE NATURAL DRUGS LEGAL, MAKE MANUFACTURED DRUGS PERSCRIPTIONABLE.
EXPAND THE BILL of RIGHTS PROTECTION TO INCLUDE MARANDA RIGHTS
END WARRANTLESS SEARCHES,DOMESTIC SPYING ON CITIZENS
GUARANTEE THAT PEOPLE CAN DO WITH THEIR BODIES WHATEVER THEY DEEM RIGHT
ALL UNIONS WOULD BE BACKED BY THE GOVT.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let's learn a new dance Posted by: bwilmot
» RE: Let's learn a new dance Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Let's learn a new dance Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
» RE: Let's learn a new dance Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Let's learn a new dance Posted by: syn7hor
Well...
Posted by: kryptx on Dec 23, 2005 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know if we will find that Bush's actions were legal or not. There are compelling arguments on both sides. If we find that it is illegal, then there is no doubt in my mind that he should be tried for it.

However, I think it would be unfortunate if this happened, because what I do know is that I find myself deeply concerned with the notion that we might not have provisions that enable us to quickly obtain legal authorization to record conversations involving known members of organizations who carry out terrorist attacks in our country, and that without such authorization this recording would be unlawful. Whether the inability to legally obtain these authorizations would stem from some political activism or idealism, or simply the complications involved in the process necessary to do so, is irrelevant to me. I feel that in our time, we need a system that enables intelligence organizations to quickly (in a matter of minutes, at the most) authorize any such wiretaps, provided that the recordings obtained are themselves used solely to protect american citizens and not to prosecute those recorded. Conservatives and liberals should not be disagreeing about whether we ought to be monitoring terrorist groups (and I think that largely, we aren't disagreeing).

Let me be unmistakably clear: If what Bush did is illegal, he should be brought to justice. There are many questions that still need to be answered (about FISA and about presidential authority) and it may very well be found that he broke the law. Honestly, I'm done discussing it because nobody here is an expert and the real experts disagree. But even if it was illegal, we need to inspect the laws under which he was prosecuted, the reasons he did what he did, and whether there are legal methods for expediently obtaining authorizations to monitor conversations pertinent to the safety of our country and its citizens. Still assuming he is successfully prosecuted, if FISA would have allowed him to obtain any authorizations that might have given us information about terrorist attacks as quickly as they were needed, then FISA is adequate. If not, I believe the law should be changed to whatever degree is necessary to allow that type of recording to take place legally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Well... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Well... Posted by: optyx1
» RE: Well... Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Well... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Well... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Well... Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Well... Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
» RE: Well... Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Well... Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
» RE: Well... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Well... Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
» RE: Well... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Well... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Well... Posted by: donsmith755
» RE: Well... Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Well... Posted by: jwg
» RE: Well... Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Well... Posted by: kencohen
» RE: Well... Posted by: tcx2
» RE: Well... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Well... Posted by: EncinoM
unlikely
Posted by: hotar on Dec 23, 2005 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"assuming he is successfully prosecuted"

There's the rub. He won't be impeached. There has been a movement afoot to have him impeached, for several years now. It won't happen unless the Dems regain control of both houses of Congress, and even then, they may be too preoccupied with trying to undo the damage that Bush and his cronies have wrought to spend time trying to impeach.

Just pray that the Dems gain control of one house of Congress, or the madness will continue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: unlikely Posted by: kryptx
» RE: unlikely Posted by: kencohen
» RE: unlikely Posted by: kryptx
» RE: unlikely Posted by: xs10shal
» RE: unlikely Posted by: kryptx
» RE: unlikely Posted by: kencohen
» RE: unlikely Posted by: kencohen
» RE: unlikely Posted by: brunowe
» RE: unlikely Posted by: bwilmot
what recourse mr.bush did have...
Posted by: diamondvajra on Dec 23, 2005 8:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
actually, it appears that his recourse would have been to the "secret" courts established in 1978 to avoid this problem. since then 19,000 requests for wiretaps, 15 or so refused. and they can be gotten retroactively, that is after a tap is put on. of course he could have been tapping democrats for all we know.

he didn't want to get approval, not because of necessary speed because he could have done it and asked later. he must have done it because the people he was evesdropping on were not "terrorists" but political opponents. HELLO PEOPLE...STOP GIVING THIS MORON THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. he has proven to be untrustworthy...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Curious
Posted by: Curious on Dec 23, 2005 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we were to push for impeachment, who would become President? And would this person be worse than Bush?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Curious Posted by: brunowe
We get the government we deserve
Posted by: veive on Dec 23, 2005 11:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We elected this asshole twice. What did we expect? In the words of His Worseness, the Prez, "Fool me once shame on...don't fool me any more..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I take issue with this! Posted by: vespasian01
Civil Rights and "Corporatism"
Posted by: redmaple on Dec 24, 2005 3:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On 16 September, 1979, Kurt Vonnegut, one of America's jolliest writers and most perceptive political commentators, spoke at a "fund-raiser" for the American Civil Liberties Union at Sands Point, NY - out on Long Island. This is one paragraph from his speech:

What troubles me most about my lovely county is that its children are seldom taught that American freedom will vanish, if, when they grow up, and in the exercise of their duties as citizens, they insist that our courts and policemen and prisons be guided by divine or natural law.

Here is another:

Well - all good things must come to an end, they say. So, American freedom will come to an end, too, sooner or later. How will it end? As all freedoms end: by surrender of our destinies to the highest laws.

The children of whom he spoke are now well and truly grown and are in danger of losing their freedom. I don't know if Mr. Vonnegut imagined how soon your country's leader would surrender not just himself but his fellow citizens to what Alcoholics Anonymous calls a "higher power" or that he would appoint himself the public interpreter of that power's dictates. I do know that Mr. Bush is no proper conduit for divine wisdom, should such wisdom exist.

Still, it might not be seemly to call him a "fascist" as some have done at this site.

Many American critics of Mr. Bush's apparent lawlessness neglect to identify the economic base of the right-wing agenda; at most, the piracy of Halliburton and other companies is mentioned as a symptom of his regime. It is therefore instructive to keep in mind that Benito Mussolini, who more or less invented fascism almost a century ago, eventually regreted using that word to label his movement, his party and his government. Such a triumphal union of private economic power and public political authority, he said, ought to have been called "corporatism." It is corporatism - ideologically sustained as much or more this time by an evangelical Protestantism than by a authoritarian Catholicism - that now threatens the US.

It is my sincere hope that American corporatism will be brought to heel for the sake of your republic and for the good of the rest of planet as well. Good luck!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember Barbara Jordan
Posted by: StoneRiley on Dec 25, 2005 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution."

There was one truly extraordinary moment in the Nixon impeachment hearings shortly before his resignation. Barbara Jordan, a black southern Congresswoman, a member of the Judiciary Committee, a college law professor, spoke to the committee -- and to the nation through the TV camera -- about the nature of American democracy and the need to check Presidential tyranny. The large audience was rapt in silence, hanging on her words. The brief speech was so lucid and convincing that a white conservative businessman in her hometown of Houston immediately put up a message on a large billboard beside a downtown freeway. The billboard said: "Thank you, Barbara Jordan, for explaining our Constitution to us."

A transcript is here:
http://www.elf.net/bjordan/judiciary.html

And a transcript of her magnificent keynote address to the next Democratic national convention is here:
http://www.elf.net/bjordan/keynote.html

Here is video of those speeches, and also a eulogy by Bill Moyers:
http://txtell.lib.utexas.edu/stories/media/j0001-video.html

Submitted by Stone Riley
stone60@aol.com
www.yessy.com/stoneriley

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: remember Barbara Jordan Posted by: vespasian01
What about Iran-Contra?
Posted by: robgo2 on Dec 25, 2005 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has everyone forgotten the Iran-Contra scandal, that involved willful violation of the law, yet made heroes of the likes of Oliver North amongst right-wing zealots? President Reagan claimed that he could not remember approving such activities (which may have been true, given his later diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease), but the principle of morally just lawbreaking was certainly invoked by many.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Grow up.
Posted by: DFrost on Dec 26, 2005 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"When Bush says he is breaking the law in order to protect Americans, he is rallying the forces of lawlessness in the country and standing..."

Absent from the article is any acknowledgement that Bush did NOT say he was breaking the law. On the contrary, he claimed to have been acting within the scope of his constitutional authority. Clinton relied on the same argument to do the same thing. However, the author of the article (like many here, alas) is so overcome with his own Bush Derangement Syndrome that Bush's lawbreaking isn't argued, merely taken as a fact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Grow up. Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
What Do You Do when the Government Breaks the Law?
Posted by: JohnW on Dec 28, 2005 1:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had heard it just like everyone else did. But, I found it hard to believe. Did Bush actually say he had authorized surveillance on Americans in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in that he didn’t even obtain a Warrant to perform this surveillance? Incredible! What did he think he was doing, -- or was he thinking at all (was Cheney was doing the thinking for him, as usual)?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides for a secret court where the Government can obtain a warrant for this kind of surveillance quickly. These warrants have historically been obtained very easily by the Government. So it wasn’t even necessary to ignore the provisions of this law. I have been trying to be a good citizen and keep informed on the issues and vote in every election for a number of decades and this is the worst case of abuse of Presidential power I have ever witnessed. It is a principle of our legal system that nobody is above the law, not even, or especially, those in positions of power.

I really do not think we have any option here. It is simple and obvious. He broke a law which he easily could have obeyed. His protestations that it would have been inconvenient to get a warrant are patently false and ludicrous. The Congress must draw up articles of impeachment. To do otherwise is to say we tolerate blatant disregard for the law and an abuse of power whereby the President violated one of the most basic protections provided citizens by the constitution – protection from unlawful search and seizure by the Government.

Mr. Bush must be impeached and then he must be prosecuted for violating the FISA statute. This is not a comfortable conclusion to arrive at but it is unavoidable. If we are to be a society governed by laws with a Government limited by the Bill of Rights we cannot tolerate any President taking the law into his own hands or treating the Bill of Rights like it’s merely an artifact of history, rather than a fundamental principle of our form of Government. If we begin to lose confidence in the integrity of the leaders of the Government, if we begin to have doubts about our Government’s respect for the law and the Constitution – we are in much more trouble than anything some foreign fanatics could bring upon us. How secure are we when the Government breaks the law?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush outside the law, answers to a lower law
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Jan 23, 2006 11:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article is correct in linking the right wing movement's disregard for law & Constitution. While of course there are righties, conservatives, Republicans who respect/revere law & the Constitution, Bush represents three large factions of the Republican party that don't: overpriviliged corporate execs who have learned how to make an art & science of their work outside the law to advance their profits, the Neocons who hate our freedoms and lust for Empire, the nutjob Dominionist/Reconstructionist Christian righties that hate our freedoms, and the weirdos at the Federalist Society and right wing think tanks like Alito & Gonzales who are the functionary lapdogs for these three factions. The triumph of these factions with their enormous p.r. propaganda machine is amazing considering they represent in reality only a small group of individuals, but by their crimes have been able to hoodwink 40% of the population and alter the votes of another 11%. By acquiring voting machine companies, the K Street Project, and a myriad of other "acquisitions" and "hostile takeovers", these factions have succeeded in being on the brink of a full takeover of what was a democratic system filled with complex checks and balances. Inherent in Bush's boasts of law breaking is the belief not only of entitlement, but of selection to lead a movement that believes its dictatorship will be installed and any challenges will be crushed. Hence the lack of respect or fear of the consequences of law breaking that have restrained previous Presidents and politicians. It's really pretty simple, isn't it? Bush, outside the law, answers to a lower law-- that of oddball drug-induced "religious" whisperings of Gawd's poirpose (as legit as Groucho Marx's presidential "seal" from Duck Soup), of corporate entitlement, of Bush upbringing, and who knows what other pathologies creating justification (and financial profit) for his team.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Creating a culture of law breaking -No law left behind
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Jan 24, 2006 12:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article is also essential in pointing out how a culture of law breaking is being created by the constant criminal behavior of this Administration and its party. Bush does not merely committ one or two obvious crimes (NSAgate and Iragqate), but appears to take the criminal/lawless option in virtually every governmental decision, by making government an instrument of profit only for his corporate cronies, and by his nature which is that, I believe, of having in fact a criminal's mind. He can't help himself (will that be his sorry defense at his trial?). More significant, though is the danger posed by the criminalization of our society and its institutions, which we begin to see flowing from Bushworld. While there has been plenty of criminal corporate behaviors prior to Bushworld, it is clear that our society is being destabilized. We see it with the idiots who refuse to fill out prescriptions they don't like at their pharmacy job, we see it with all sorts of businesses that rip us off all over the place as government is now refusing to monitor or punish businesses that break the law or take advantage of the consumer. The environment being created is very dangerous and unpleasant to say the least, and the Bush legacy is that and what that may spawn. Al Gore is correct --the solution is the rule of law, and this is why Bush must be held accountable (& Cheney, et al, but also all of the criminals in the righty movement and its corporate benefactors must be prosecuted fully). The honest and sincere righties should support and profit from a cleanup of the criminals from their ranks. If all this does not happen, may the lord have mercy on America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]