Quote:
Originally posted by LessinSF
Comprehensive review, if often disjointed, of the, like-whatever-we-like-regardless-of-whether-it-has-coherent-reason or dislike it, approach of the Bush administration to the rule of law, Constitutionalism, Federalism, separation of powers, and a changing world. It is also a pretty good contrast of our own internal and external debates of security versus liberty, and the Bush Administration's (and its defender's) lip-service to historical (Hi Nino!) Constitutional distinctions and protections and the desire/need in our current world to deal with perceived threats - real (terrorists) or contrived (drugs).
Correctly, it alludes to John Yoo being a toady and intellectual midget, and Boalt should should be ashamed for him being on their faculty - not because I disagree with him, but because his scholarship < his partisan bias (cubed). But, to be fair, Cal has 20 equally ridiculous faculty on the other side who should be relegated to their proper role as baristas.
The tough answer remains, security versus liberty in the modern world, and how do we fit Constitutionalism within it? I generally tend to agree with the author's implicit premise that we achieve more by maintaining our moral high ground in the treatment of prisoners than is gained by other techniques. I recognize the appeal and neccessity of a "24" argument, but, until shown otherwise, I think we lose any moral righeousness in 99% of situations in favor of a government offering 1% hypotheticals. And they sectrete that 1% occasion, and offer to the world the 99% of mistreatment for no proven value.
If it is true that (despite arguments that the methods are counterproductive) these harsher, unconstitutional, violative of international agreements on treament of prisoners, and otherwise offensive behavior is effectively preventing attacks and saving thousands, I say prove it. I have argued that it is a different world - the ability of whackjobs to export mass-death and terror has become easier, and we all know (even you, Ty) who they are - and that maybe a different approach to historic rights might be necessary. But, all I hear are "trust me" recitations from an administration whose credibility lies somewhere between the Boy Who Cried Wolf and Richard Nixon.
In the end, those of you (Hank, Slave?) who argue in support of the most atrocious elements of the Patriot Act (even Bush appointees are striking this fucker down), should recognize that granting unfettered discretion in the only branch of government resting in one person is beyond scary. The only difference betwenn Bush's view of power and any other wannabe dictator is his lack of vision.
|
This is a pointless debate. If Bush goes too far, one group hates him (as represented here, by the many liberals and moderates in this forum who dislike his 'power grabs'). If he doesn't go far enough, another group (see: red staters, and when a 9/11 happens, everyone else, including the same liberals and moderates here who loath him, at that juncture criticizing him for not doing enough).
A classic damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. And its not created by Bush or Republicans. It's created by people like us who criticize from all angles and are never satisfied. I'm not saying we shouldn't do that. I'm just saying "Hey, you liberal motherfuckers whining about Bush's torture policies... Yeh, well, you're culpable as well, for being two-faced like the rest of us."
He's got to do something, and he's erring on the side of vigilance. You can say it's the lesser of two evils or you can say its reprehensible, but you can't say its all his fault. It's OUR fault. We want security but we don;t want any of the ugliness that goes along with it.
