As is often the case, the discussion of the NSA law-breaking scandal in the blogosphere has been infinitely more thorough, informed and informative than in all of the mainstream newspapers, magazines and television programs combined. Eriposte at The Left Coaster has posted a superb compilation of all of the arguments and evidence marshaled by the blogosphere which negate each pro-Bush talking point on this issue.
What this compilation reflects is the persistent clarity and simplicity of this issue. The eavesdropping on American citizens which Bush ordered (and continues to order) is a criminal offense under the law. Thus, the only way to defend George Bush is to argue -- as the Administration has been shamelessly arguing -- that he has the right to act in violation of this law (and others). As long as Bush opponents hammer at that point, I believe this scandal will not disappear until there is some serious accountability from the Administration, including punishment for all Administration officials who broke the law.
That is a great compilation. It's amazing how much has been together on this in such a short time. Blogging is like some sort of collective consciousness, everyone does their thing, and at the end, the facts emerge.
ReplyDeleteI'm not convincved by any of the pro-Bush arguments, but I have to say that those in the blogosphere advocating them have also done a better job than those in the mainstream press who whore for Bush.
ReplyDeleteI don't think blogs always do better - a lot of times they clearly don't - but on this issue, there has been no comparison.
Right, law professors and political scientists across the Board have said that there are strong arguments justifying the legality of Bush's program, or that it's clear that he has the authority to do so.
ReplyDeleteBut according to you, it's always so "clear" "clear" "clear" that Bush broke the law.
What a smug and arrogant prick you are.
Right, law professors and political scientists across the Board have said that there are strong arguments justifying the legality of Bush's program, or that it's clear that he has the authority to do so.
ReplyDeleteBut according to you, it's always so "clear" "clear" "clear" that Bush broke the law.
What a smug and arrogant prick you are.
Mick, you exemplify the problem with the whole radical right - a lack of rational thought. Do you imagine for a second that the same prof's to whom you refer do not also have agendas? and that you have no clue whatsoever as to the intent and specifics of those agendas? But here Glenn reads and thinks for himself, only to be castigated as a smug and arrogant prick/
ReplyDeleteWell, if doing your own reading and thinking makes one a smug and arrogant prick, then clearly this country needs MORE smug and arrogant pricks.
Maybe you should give it a try.
Jake
Oh, OK - so the law professors who defend Bush have their own agenda. But people like Greenwald who attack Bush are exercising critical thought and thinking for themselves.
ReplyDeleteSort of like how the Plame leaks are evil and the NSA leaks are heroic. Nice double standards you got for yourself there, Jakey.
mick994: What Bush-defending law professors do you mean? I voted for Bush in '04, and have generally supported his terrorism policies. However, as a lawyer I hold competence to assess the merits of legal arguments about his NSA program, and I have not found any of those defenses persuasive.
ReplyDeleteAs I posted in a thread below, Harvard Con Law prof Charles Fried "defends" Bush by saying the DoJ's arguments are "plausible" -- a deadly word that is a polite way of saying "really flimsy" -- and then goes on to argue that what Bush has done should be tolerated even if it is illegal.
What legal analyses have you read that are stronger than that, and which have not been thoroughly debunked at both this site and elsewhere?
Mick, you have issues with reading, don't you? At least with comprehension. I said nothing about Glenn's agendas. In a way, I implied that he HAS an agenda. So? He is a citizen of the United States of America. He is entitled to an agenda. So are the law profs to whom you refer. My point it that Glenn's agenda, whatever it might be, is his own and is supported by investigative reading and critical thinking. Your agenda appears to be to take on faith anything anyone says who supports your pre-existing beliefs - but said beliefs themselves are not supported by your your own thought or investigation.
ReplyDeleteSo be a prick, Mick, and read something besides pre-digested pap.
Then again, you are reading here. Now if you could only comprehend what you read.
Jake
NSA story points to glaring omission in Bush's argument. In his black and white world where he can overthrow Congress, that action sidesteps, quite simply, DEBATE. Debate opens up the argument to create strength by common resolution. Debate looks at all angles, not just the Pres's perspective and thus Debate will protect this nation against the nasty consequences, the weakened direction of a singular view.
ReplyDeleteWell said, Glenn. I think there may be a danger here in getting bogged down in quibbling over whether or not the President's actions are illegal and if so how - which might make the whole issue so involved and boring that people switch off.
ReplyDeleteWhilst it's important to point out the many flaws in the feeble justifications which right-leaning lawyers have offered for Bush's actions, if only to have rebuttals ready for people like the odious "mick994", it's also important to keep it out in the open that Bush broke the damn law - and even admitted it.
University of Chicago Law Professor Geoffrey Stone has some informative posts over at www.huffingtonpost.com
ReplyDelete