Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
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

The Offer Congress Can't Refuse

By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet. Posted January 24, 2006.


The Justice Department's most recent defense of Bush's illegal wiretap program makes clear that there is no room in the president's plans for Congress.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Onnesha Roychoudhuri

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

"The Godfather" is a pivotal film because it manages to characterize violence and illegal conduct as necessary, as honorable -- portraying it as an unsightly means to a peaceful end. Who doubted Michael Corleone's honest intentions to find the peace? He never wanted to be like his father -- he wanted to become legit.

But when his family was facing a threat, the gloves came off. A critical moment in the film is when you see this transformation. At the baptism of his nephew, he repeats the priest's litanies: "Do you renounce Satan and all his works?" And with all honesty, and seeming integrity, the young Corleone affirms this. "I do renounce him."

The camera cuts to scenes of the heads of the five other mafia families being slaughtered on his command. In this moment, the audience is led to believe that Michael Corleone had renounced evil, and that the violence that he was sanctioning was therefore something other -- a necessary act required to reach a plane of higher good. He was only trying to protect his family.

Throughout Bush's "war on terror," but especially since the New York Times finally revealed the National Security Agency's (NSA) illegal wiretap program, we have been treated to this justification. The Department of Justice last week released a 42-page defense [PDF] of the domestic spying program that reinforces this line of reasoning, even as it claims more powers for the executive Branch.

Letting the president define 'evil'

Ever since 9/11, there has been a distinct shift in what Americans seem to view as "evil" or "bad." Terrorists are evil, and finding them and murdering them, by whatever means necessary, are depicted as a necessary evil that will lead to a greater good.

Statements and actions that would have previously incited shock were allowed, general outrage was suspended in lieu of the solitary outrage the nation felt at the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. Recall president Bush's 2003 State of the Union remark: "More than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. And many others have met a different fate. Let's just say they are no longer a problem for the United States and our friends and allies."

The latest revelation of outrageous activities done in the name of protecting Americans is the National Security Agency's (NSA) secret, warrantless wiretaps program. Rather than utilizing existing laws, the president has asserted his right to fight the war on terror exactly as illegally as he deems fit. The Department of Justice's January 19 legal defense of wiretaps makes clear that the administration, rather than providing a humbled justification of its spying on Americans, is instead focusing on broadening its campaign to normalize extralegal activities. This is all part of an ever-increasing body of evidence revealing that, even while facing heated public scrutiny, the administration continues to seek expansion of executive power.

The detainment of "enemy combatants," the sanctioning of interrogation techniques internationally deemed "torture," and the latest revelation that president Bush started a program of extralegal wiretaps have provoked outrage among those concerned about civil liberties, human rights and the rule of law.

Time and again, the president has cited the defense that he is protecting the nation's security, and though we may not be privy to how, or indeed, what exactly against, we are continually subjected to this paternal insistence. A pat on the head, equivalent to saying, "You don't understand what I have to do, so I'm not going to bother to explain it to you, but I'll protect you."

The vast cataloguing of executive abuses of power press by groups like Human Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Amnesty International and the Center for Constitutional Rights may lead you to wonder whether the administration has malicious intent in consistently skirting civil liberties. But perhaps more disturbing is the notion that, like Michael Corleone in "The Godfather," the president has disregarded the law time and time again because he trusts that God is on his side in this struggle -- that the rules must be suspended for the time being in order to achieve the higher goal of the eradication of all enemy forces. If the president truly believes that this is the case, he will stop at nothing to "protect" the American people by riding roughshod over hundreds of years of legal precedent. The categorically incorrect implication is that laws were designed for better times.


Digg!

Onnesha Roychoudhuri is an editorial fellow at AlterNet.

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:
all around the mulberry bush
Posted by: whoopingcrone on Jan 24, 2006 3:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You write "The terms of the AUMF not only authorized the president to 'use all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the September 11th attacks; it also authorized the president to 'determine' the persons or groups responsible for those attacks.
An odd emphasis considering we know that it was specifically al Qaida who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks."

Since public acceptance of the conclusions derived from their circular reasoning depends on accepting the same source’s version of the 9/11 events, it seems to me it might be prudent to consider the possibility that their assignment of responsibility is another “reichstag fire”, ie. allegation, rather than something we “know”.

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

Looking out for the 10%
Posted by: rabblerowzer on Jan 24, 2006 3:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looking out for the 10%

America’s governing and ruling classes have set aside the national treasury as seed money for global conquest and war profiteering. Our plutocracy considers all spending for the common good socialism. Why invest in America’s infrastructure when the future they decree is totalitarianism, military conquest and economic cannibalism.

A majority of American’s are so poorly educated, it would take twenty years and trillions of dollars to make them competitive with foreign work forces. All products and services performed by Americans can be outsourced to foreign countries at a fraction of labor costs here. Shifting corporate resources overseas will eliminate hundreds of hindrances to corporate profit, things like environmental laws, minimum wage, health and safety, child labor laws, pension costs, health care, and the need for public education.

The only real need our rulers have for most of us is as soldiers, and neutron bombs might make us redundant.

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

Secrets
Posted by: kgs1947 on Jan 24, 2006 3:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Secrets are the highlight of an addict's life (read alcoholic). The other characteristics of an addictive lifestyle is rigidity, intolerance of criticism, the need to control people and circumstances, fear-based thinking. We have such a person leading this nation. He may or may not be drinking, but he is exhibiting all the telltale signs of self-destructive behavior and thinking. The problem is: His behavior and thinking is bringing this nation down to his level, a level of destruction for anyone in his path.

It doesn't end there! All others who turn a blind eye to his behavior is implicitly as responsible as he is for what is happening.

Listen up, Congress and voters! We are deep trouble.

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

Urgent Need to Overthrow the Government
Posted by: rangerjim on Jan 24, 2006 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The need for we the American people to rise up and overthrow the government is becoming more and more urgent each day as President Hitler continues to Nazify the regime in Washington and continues to defy the will of the people, breaking our laws, and trying to turn the Constitution into a piece of toilet paper if that. This Third Reich mentality of the Bush Crime Family has got to stop. These people need to be removed by whatever means is necessary. Look at what they are doing to the American Worker: Thousands in the auto plants are about to lose their jobs, and possibly end up on welfare, crime rates in the affected communties is going to skyrocket. This plutocracy has got to be taken out and taken out now. Illegal wiretaps, and thuggish tactics make George W. Hitler (Bush) more dangerous than Nixon ever was and a menace that needs to be stopped by whatever means is necessary before America becames a fascist dictatorship, which it is well on the way of becoming. All the more reason for workers losing their jobs to take up arms against Bush and his band of Nazis. They care more about wetbacks coming to America to steal jobs than Americans about to lose theirs. The flag that should be flying over the White House is a Nazi Swastika. These aren' Republicans, these are Nazis who are in power.

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

what's the phrase I'm looking for?
Posted by: mazel on Jan 24, 2006 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hm, it begins with a C...oh! Coup d'etat--that's the one.

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

No need for the mafia image; Bush's behavior is that of a CEO or business owner.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 24, 2006 5:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, this President is acting as if he owns the USA or has been hired to run it.

CEO's have built reputations by selling off companies and shutting them down in order to "cash-out" their value in the name of instant profit. Bush is shutting down the general welfare and civil rights in the name of instant security.

Just as corporations were allowed because they promoted the public good but now serve only their boards of directors, that Bush applies the same model to governing should come as no surprise.

It's the way things are done by American business.

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

Cranky
Posted by: portly on Jan 24, 2006 5:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really hate waking up so cranky every day. It's like watching a train wreck. Running on the treadmill yesterday at lunch, watching this chucklehead laugh through his crooked, sneering smile..."If I thought it was illegal, why would i brief the Congress??" cackle cackle.

I just gotta stop listening to the news til January 20, 2007, when, one way or another, i won't have to listen to this bozo anymore...

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

» RE: Cranky Posted by: JoshuaHolland
Congressional Hearings
Posted by: patti_s on Jan 24, 2006 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that unless we as people, blanket the Republican Senators with letters and e-mails demanding it, there will be no Congressional hearings, other than the one by the Judiciary Committee. We need to put it to them that if they expect to be reelected to office, we demand they hold comprehensive hearings.
Should this not work, we had better make sure the Democrats take back the House in 2006. This option seems the most logical one simply because the Repubs are not caring what we say. Patti_s

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

» E-Petition campaign Posted by: brunowe
» RE: -Petition campaign Posted by: patti_s
» RE: -Petition campaign Posted by: Lincoln fan
Rescind the AUMF?
Posted by: PalEBoy on Jan 24, 2006 7:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Congress was serious about limiting the executive power on this; can't it simply rescind the AUMF? And if it did, I'd have to think El Presidente would ignore it and set the stage for a serious showdown.

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

» RE: escind the AUMF? Posted by: brunowe
President Bush
Posted by: the islander on Jan 24, 2006 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
President Bush -- the embodiment of the law

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

Move On petition
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jan 24, 2006 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brunowe already posted this web site, but I think it should be more prominent. MoveOn has a petition to demand an independent investigation of the legality of the wire tapping. I urge everybody to look at it and decide if they want to sign or not.

Click on moveon petition

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

Here we go again...
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 24, 2006 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the author:
"Ever since 9/11, there has been a distinct shift in what Americans seem to view as "evil" or "bad." Terrorists are evil, and finding them and murdering them, by whatever means necessary, are depicted as a necessary evil that will lead to a greater good."

Funny –– that's the same way the German leadership thought about Communists, Gypsies and Jews in the 1930's. Anybody remember how that turned out?

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

» That's not an apt analogy Posted by: brunowe
» But is there a better one? Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» Nixonian ... Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» RE: But is there a better one? Posted by: monkeywrench
» RE: That's not an apt analogy Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: Here we go again... Posted by: saywhat?
» RE: Here we go again... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Here we go again... Posted by: saywhat?
Tongue-in-Cheekism
Posted by: benzene on Jan 24, 2006 10:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Es ist sehr intressant, dass Bush nicht auf den Leuten gewaehlt ist. Wer noch war auch nicht gewaehlt? Na klar! Der Fuehrer, aber jetzt, mit den krisigen Bewegungen der Geschichte, weiss ich nicht mehr, ob Bush oder Stalin unseren Fuehrer ist...

(it's quite interesting, that Bush was not elected by the people, who else was also not elected? Of course, The Leader, however, now, with the circular movements of history, I no longer have any idea, whether Bush or Stalin is The Leader)

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

If they say so it must be true
Posted by: andyod on Jan 24, 2006 8:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just got past listening to the President telling me how evil attorneys were filing bad lawsuits against the doctors.When I turn around and there he is justifying his spying "I have got all these attorneys saying I can do it"( a loose paraphrase.)
So now I am to believe the attorneys. My head spins from trying to keep up with the lies.

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

More refined than Hitler!
Posted by: andyod on Jan 24, 2006 8:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think so. At least not the leader. Can you see him writing a best seller like Mein Kampf. Can you see him sitting through the RING of Wagner? Or listening to Mozart ? I dont think so. a man who never reads the newspapers more refined I don't think so.

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

» RE: More refined than Hitler! Posted by: saywhat?
» RE: More refined than Hitler! Posted by: saywhat?
dumbfounded canuck
Posted by: paw on Jan 24, 2006 8:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
can someone please tell me how much creedence is being given to the darker possibilities of 9/11.......as in why no one is allowed to investigate the real possibility these buildings were bombed from the inside out as well???........bush et al seem to be based on one fabrication upon the next........or is this just too painful to raise above conspiratorial.......

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

In defense of our friends.
Posted by: andyod on Jan 24, 2006 8:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Today he warned Iran that we would go to war in defense
of our friends Israel. Please don't use some other country as an excuse for killing thousands of people. But then again since when did Mr Bush need an excuse? He could always invent one.Is that not what Hitler did? I mean make up excuses to go to war.

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

Emporer by fiat of the Supreme Court...
Posted by: magistre on Jan 24, 2006 9:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Emporer for Life, also by fiat of the Supreme Court. His Supreme Court. Everyone is so afraid and vocal about "Roe vs. Wade" but has no one seen that W's Supreme Court will overturn Term Limitations! They already own the "voting machines"...

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