How Should a Patriot Act?
As Glenn Greenwald makes clear, Bush has applied his claim to be above the law far beyond the issue of wiretaps. Bush has acted on the belief that he may seize anyone, even an American citizen living within the United States, and hold him as he deems fit in a military prison, there to be subject to harsh treatment that does not fall short of torture. Greenwald has rendered an inestimable service by his clear and cogent analysis of gross presidential usurpation of power. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (14)
"How should a patriot act?" As Thomas Paine rightly said, "It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government." And one only has to compare this to the modern version of patriotism to understand what has become of a once great nation:
“There's nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country." -- Bill Clinton
Published: February 6, 2008 10:46 AM
After removing all the subjective, emotional and value-laden adjectives, very little remained of David Gordon's review. I suspect that Glenn Greenwald's position, like Mr. Gordon's, could benefit from the inclusion of constructive alternatives to the thorny issues presented by terrorist abuse of the rule of law in America and the world over. The world is full of imperfect solutions but these sorts of diatribes bring us no closer to better ones.
Published: February 6, 2008 11:29 AM
"Brooks Imperial",
Grow up. If your idea of "law" allowed people to defend themselves, you wouln't need to worry about the government's inept "justice" system failing.
Published: February 6, 2008 11:36 AM
I tried Brooks Imperial's suggestion and read my review without the adjectives. The contentions of the review remain the same.
Published: February 6, 2008 12:34 PM
As I understand it, the main complaints on the issue of wiretapping are that the president and the executive authorized spying, including wiretaps, on foreign nationals on foreign soil suspected of terrrorism. The complaint basically is that when the call originated from the USA, the spooks didn't switch off the recorder. To do so, personally, seems rather silly, considering that the purpose is to stop terrorist attacks inside the USA. Wouldn't it be nice to know who the terrorist is in contact with in the USA?
As for Padilla, that case involves a US citizen joining with a foreign force at war with the US and returning as part of that force to do damage to the US. The precedent for treating him as an enemy combatant is not Bush, but Roosevelt.
Published: February 6, 2008 5:49 PM
So Brooks Imperial, what objective reason is there for giving a politician such powers?
Published: February 6, 2008 8:07 PM
Personally I think the adjectives were flavorful and accurate when referencing Bush in the first paragraph.
I'd have to say however, that I for one am very interested in reading this book. I agree w/ Greenwald regarding the issuance of warrants as has been the case before Bush's term, pre 9/11.
On the other hand, I agree w/ Harvey Mansfield view on leadership, "...president sometimes faces the need to act in an emergency. He cannot, in a dire situation, always follow the law. He must violate the law to save the country."
Mansfield needn't appeal to Machiavelli for support. Anyone that knows anything about leadership knows that there are times in which good people must do extraordinary things to save the nation. Let me also state that Bush is neither good nor was he in a predicament that required the total disregard for the letter of the law.
In reading Greenwald's book, my hope is that he addresses not only the usurpation of the triune power and balance of this nation, but also the lack of defense provided by congress in signing the act w/o reading the content therein.
If we as a nation appoint ineffective leaders to lead this great nation, it should come to no surprise that the head of our nation will be just as inept as those we entrust to w/ supporting what is best for the nation versus what is best for the man of the house.
Published: February 6, 2008 10:12 PM
LByron,
Here's the substance of what Greenwald is saying about the eavesdropping, FISA court had long been criticized … for being too permissive, for allowing the government whatever eavesdropping powers it requested. Indeed, its reputation for granting every eavesdropping request made by the government is so widespread that it has long been ridiculed as the "Rubber Stamp Court." … The FISA court approved every single request [out of 13,102 submitted between 1978 and 2001] and only modified the requested warrant on a grand total of two occasions. (p. 28)
It' NOT a matter of the gov't NOT protecting the country, it's a matter of the RAMIFICATION of Bush's action AFTER we end this allege WOT nonsense. No one can honestly say they feel more secure as a result of a bandage applied to the wound of an open heart surgery that TRUE terrorism is.
If anything, under International Law (more often used as a tool for politics than not), a foreigner (Hamdi) being investigated by this country has MORE rights than a natural born citizen (Padilla). If you look at how the case of Zacarias Moussaoui went down, you'll realize that Bush and his cabal are using 9/11 to shape the course of history. Like many people, still, I trust that not all Americans are blood thirsty freaks like those in our current administration. Isn't it surprising--to those who buy whatever the gov't has to sell-that Moussaoui escaped capital punishment because of the jurors decision? Isn't it interesting that the gov't didn't seek to plea bargain to get more information to get to others that were involved in the 9/11 "terrorist" incident?
How about the treatment of Yaser Esam Hamdi? He was sent back to Saudi Arabia under the condition to NEVER come back to the US. What sort of sanction is that for someone CLAIMED to have been an "enemy combatant"? Everyone knows that should Hamdi want to come back, all he need to is cross the Mexican border like SO many illegal immigrants, Mexicans, Central and South Americans ALREADY do.
The presidency is a position of power. With that power comes great responsibility not only to the populace, but our allies.
Published: February 6, 2008 10:50 PM
What I find particularly worrisome is not that Bush has claimed plenary powers, but that he has set a precedent for others to follow. Once established, what is stopping his successors from claiming the same powers for stopping other alleged "terrorists"?
Is there any doubt that President McCain (I have difficulty typing "President McCain"), infamous for his McCain-Feingold monstrosity, would use this power to punish free speech advocates? How about President Hillary Clinton putting away abortion rights or 2nd Amendment activists indefinitely?
We live in scary times.
Published: February 6, 2008 11:40 PM
But I don't like America; I don't like the government; I don't like the Constitution.
Bush is evil not because he disobeyed the arbitrary Constitution, but he's evil because he's evil.
Published: February 7, 2008 12:08 AM
"Once established, what is stopping his successors from claiming the same powers for stopping other alleged "terrorists"?"
That is EXACTLY it.
Published: February 7, 2008 9:41 PM
I am not as well read as many that use this site, but I believe that the fundamental reason that these "special powers" were denied originally in all cases was because they are so seductive to those who know best how to run other's lives. Also, as power-seeking individuals are drawn to powerful positions, crises can be either created in fact or in word to justify ever more intrusive and controlling intervention into the lives of private citizens. Evil people, almost by definition, seek positions to put themselves in power over other's lives. Even good people can be seduced to evil by supposed need of the moment or their justification of means to arrive at their "good" end. The founding fathers understood these simple facts of human nature, and tried to guard themselves, their progeny, and their fellow citizens from loss of liberty due to misuse of power.
I am far more concerned about the government that is waging war on my money, my livelyhood, my other property rights, my liberty, and that of my family and children than I will ever be about other terrorists. (I felt that it is important to note here that I am indeed an American citizen, and the government I am talking about is my own.)
Was it Franklin that said "People who give up liberty to gain security will lose both and deserve neither."?
Respectfully submitted.
Published: February 8, 2008 3:18 AM
Bush swore an oath not only that he would "faithfully execute the office of President", but that he would "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".
The case of Jose Padilla, an American citizen, who was arrested in America and cast into a military prison in South Carolina, and denied access to a lawyer, is outrageous. It is a violation of Amendment V (1791) of the US constitution, which reads:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person .. be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Padilla was not engaging the US armed forces in battle at the time of his arrest, and the President had no right to deprive him of liberty without due process of law.
The King of England himself had no such right (though he sometimes attempted to assert one), and it beggars belief that the President would have been given more powers than the King he replaced.
The writ of habeas corpus goes back centuries. In 1215 King John was forced to sign Magna Carta. In 1649 King Charles 1 was executed for ruling unlawfully. In 1783 William Pitt said that the poorest man in his cottage could bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. Even the ancient law of Norway proclaimed:
"If the King violates a free man's dwelling, all will seek out the King to kill him".
Fortunately it is not necessary to convene a posse to kill the President. The constitution provides that the president may be impeached by the Senate for "high crimes and misdemeanors". There is no higher crime than deprivation of life or liberty without due process of law. Bush should have been impeached.
Published: February 8, 2008 9:11 AM
If the American president can ignore the constitution and violate the law in his efforts to "protect the nation from terrorists" then neither the constitution nor the violated law is a sufficient or necessary check against the abuse of presidential powers.
To argue that 300 million plus Americans will be protected from evil by the wisdom of one man (Bush) is to merely show an ignorance of the greater scheme of the operations of the universe whose wondrous workings could not be bound by constitutions, FISA, and what ever little political devices that pretend to protect nations!
Published: February 8, 2008 11:46 AM