Comments on The Anonymous Liberal: The Spying Controversy: Engaging Bush's Apologists...

To anonymous:The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sec...

2006-02-08T05:48:00.000-05:00

To anonymous:

The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2, specifically says, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." The delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1778 voted unanimously on the first clause. Later, Gouverneur Morris introduced a qualifying second exception clause adapted from the Massachusetts state constitution, and the provision were passed by a vote of 7 states to 3 states.

So, it is clear that Pres. Lincoln did not violate anybody's Constitutional right by suspending habeus corpus. But the question went further to examine whether or not the conditions in 1861 constituted war, riot and insurrection? Let's look at the facts again. As secession began, many Federal forts fell into the hands of the Confederates; military officers of the southern extraction resigned in drove from the old Army and went South; Gen. David Twiggs of Georgia surrendered his Federal Military Department to the Texans without a fight; Secretary of War Floyd of the Buchannan Administration amassed huge amount of military equipment in the hands of the military authorities with Southern sympathy; and crisis at the two forts, Pickens in Florida and Sumter in S. Carolina of which, nobody knew which one would blow up first at that time. All these facts were pointing to riots, insurrection and act of war. Certainly the conditions satisfied the exception clause to suspend habeus corpus.

So what I'm telling you is this: Larry Tribe is right. You are wrong. Get it?

Larry Tribe's letter is hard to take seriously, wh...

2006-01-18T15:31:00.000-05:00

Larry Tribe's letter is hard to take seriously, when it ends like this:

"the presidential program of surveillance at issue here is . . . as grave an abuse of executive authority as I can recall ever having studied."

If Larry Tribe hasn't studied enough to have heard of Lincoln's suspension of the right of habeas corpus, how seriously can his scholarship be taken? On the other hand, if he has heard of it (as I'm sure he has), how reliable can his analysis be if he wilfully engages in such rhetorical hyperbole?

Don't bother with these debates - it's hard to tel...

2006-01-16T13:02:00.000-05:00

Don't bother with these debates - it's hard to tell if the person you'r debating, on this singular issue, is sincere. It's so doubtful that many of them would uphold the general principles of their argument, if Clinton were in office.

If you listed to Bush supporters, en masse, you can tell they make exceptions for him. It's more of a personality cult, on behalf of a national Fraternity leader, than it is a theory of politics.

Stop by our blog and read our recent 3 posts and you'll see what we mean.

Well, I personally think this is largely a distinc...

2006-01-13T21:13:00.000-05:00

Well, I personally think this is largely a distinction without a difference. Intentional self deception is not any different than intentional ignorance. They are equivalent from a moral and ethical perspective.

Your pointer to Kissinger's book is welcomed. I hadn't read that, sad to say. In any event, I disagree somewhat. I don't disagree with the assertion that they *believe* they have the best interests of the citizens at heart. But to me, this is really a meaningless statement. I would wager that pretty much everyone - of all political stripes - believes they are acting in the best interests of the citizens.

I'm reminded of a talk that Daniel Elsberg gave in which he talked about conflict of interest.

The problem of conflict of interest with people's background, from the oil industry, for example, like Bush and Cheney, is not that they tell themselves, I'm acting for my corporate sponsors and from personal interests against the interests of the United States. Conflict of interest consists of the fact they can't see any difference between the interests of the U.S. and what they learned, as oil executives, was in the interest of the U.S., and of those corporations. That's why the Constitution so wisely said, don't let one man, elected man - or in this case almost elected man - decide the issue of war and peace. That should be the job of a more broadly representative body that will make it hard and reluctant to get into war. As Tom Payne said, "It is the pride of kings that throws mankind into confusion."

To my thinking this explains the situation nicely and explains all cognitive dissonances.

Might I suggest a third option? Jeff doesn't want...

2006-01-13T15:09:00.000-05:00

Might I suggest a third option? Jeff doesn't want to get it. This whole wiretapping thing, and even the larger view of the WOT as a whole has often brought my thoughts to Paul Krugman's introduction in his book, when he references Kissinger's "A World Restored". I understand that since I referenced Krugman, an avowed Democrat and liberal, this automatically renders all of my arguments null and void, and I'll wait for you all to click elsewhere.

Still with me? Kissinger describes what would happen when a stable system is confronted by a "revolutionary power" that rejects the legitimacy of the system itself. I'm certainly not comparing the current Administration with Napoleon (Kissinger's case study). But in light of the wiretapping, torture, and detaining of ECs indefinitely (among other things), it's seems eerily similar. I would argue that the Administration tries to have the best interests of the citizens at heart. But it does not accept the current judicial and legislative system we live in as legitimate.

I admire your fortitude, but at this point, it's p...

2006-01-13T13:46:00.000-05:00

I admire your fortitude, but at this point, it's pretty clear that Jeff either doesn't get it or he purposefully doesn't get it. I'm betting on the later.

Still, keep up the good fight.