There May Yet Be Hope

[rev_tobias]

Torture proponent Alberto Gonzalez, the US Attorney General probably best known for his strong belief that the President is above the law, gave a speech to law students at Georgetown today, once again declaring how Emperor George I. was well within his God-given rights when he ordered illegal wiretaps on US citizens

Comments

[stone_]

It's actually a poor paraphrase since it loses it's entire basis in sensibility by that shortening. The full quote about giving up essential liberties for temporary security is much more complete and true.

Of course those that give up temporary liberty for essestial security would be worthy of the highest acclaim by the same logic.

To say that one must never give up any liberty for security is not only folly but absurd in its totality. In fact, to live in any society one gives up liberty for security. That's the basis of civilization. One gives up the liberty to do what they please, like steal from others, for the security that others will not steal from them.

[rev_tobias]

I agree that shortening the quote was a bit unfortunate, though I also believe the full original quote is a bit too long for a banner of the kind displayed at the Gonzalez speech.

Yes, the refusal to give up any liberty at all is the way to anarchy. However, the amount of liberty that's been lost under the Bush administration far outweighs any gains as far as I can see. In fact, I don't see any gains (unless seen from the administration's perspective).

[dreagoddess]

I find it hysterical how everyone who describes this automatically says, "Well, he broke the law. Because he ordered illegal wiretaps!" No one ever says "he broke the law by wiretapping" or "he ordered illegal wiretaps". You really don't need both. (There actually is a hell of a lot of room for debate on whether they're actually illegal or not. Ill-advised I'll grant you, and definitely the product of Congress acting first and thinking later on granting of power, but there's definitely an argument on both sides.)

And law schools have been notoriously liberal for decades, dear. They see the light once they get out of the ivory tower and into the real world. ;)

[stone_]

Like the old adage says,
"If a man is not a liberal when he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative when he is 40, he has no brain" - Churchill

[rev_tobias]

I don't think so. I'm not a bleeding heart leftie, but even rapidly approaching 40 I don't see myself as conservative. Guess I could call myself a centrist - I agree or disagree with issues on both sides.

[rev_tobias]

I believe I didn't fall into that grammatical trap ;)

As for the debate, AFAIK Bush is claiming war powers even though the USA have not declared war on another country (just bombed the fuck out of and invaded them). The "war on terror" doesn't count.

[ccr1138]

The beauty of our system is that, even if the pendulum swings too far one way in the short term, the will of the people comes into play eventually to correct the problem. Think back to McCarthyism. Sure, there are always people who want to run their little dictatorships, but they don't last long. That's not an excuse, BTW. It's just an expression of hope. No matter how screwed up a particular law or policy or administration is, unless the people agree with it, it WILL be fixed.

[rev_tobias]

Your word in god's ear.
(does that saying even exist in English?)

[ccr1138]

Yes! "From your mouth to God's ear." How do you say it in Deutsch?

[rev_tobias]

In Kraut it is "Dein Wort in Gottes Ohr" - literally, "your word in God's ear."

Cool, I wasn't sure this would translate :)

[rev_tobias]

Which ones? The "OMGNUCULARTERRISTS911DURKADURKAFEAR" administration or those evil, fearmongering law students?

[kmg_365]

I did hear something on the drive home yesterday that I considered refreshing:

A Democratic senator (or was it a congressman...I forget) who said that he was going to abstain from stating whether or not any laws were broken until after the details surrounding the incident(s) are known.

A novel idea, that.

I haven't formulated an opinion either way on this matter because I have only heard the talking points from both sides, which seem to be:

Dems: OMFG! He wire tapped your grandmother when you were exchanging recipes for apple pie!!!

Reps: Only people with suspected ties to Al Queda were subject to this. Besides, you guys declared war, and he has these powers during war time. Clinton and previous administrations have done similar things.

Dems: No, we didn't declare war on anyone. And don't drag Clinton or anyone else into it!

Reps: You're wimps!

Dems: You're evil!!

As you can see, a very productive forum! ;-)

[rev_tobias]

Lemme see if I got that right... that Congressman was asked for his opinion on the mess and he just decided to hedge his bets until someone else had decided for him? Or is he just waiting for more data to base his decision on?

[kmg_365]

He is waiting for more data to base his decision on. I think he is taking the "presumption of innocence" path.

AFAIK, little if any information has been "leaked" about the wire tapping incident(s), so he felt it a bit premature to discuss whether or not laws were broken, the scope of the wire taps, or whether or not W should be impeached.

The media, sadly, hasn't taken the same route in this particular case. Gone is the requisite "alleged" in their discussion - they have convicted without evidence. It is entirely possible that laws were broken. The Congressman's point is that we don't have enough information on hand at the moment to make that determination.

[rev_tobias]

Ah, ok. That I can totally sympathize with an appreciate.