Posted By:
Kenny ColeOK, I tried to stay out of the thread, but I just couldn't. So here goes.
Last year, I went to a talk given by Edwin Chemerinsky, who I believe is recognized to be one of the leading Constitutional scholars of our generation. I don't think any lawyer who knows anything about the Constitution can seriously argue that point. They can argue his polictical bent, but they can't argue his knowledge or qualifications. The topic of his lecture was the Constitutional crisis that the Bush administration has created. Chemerinsky listed and discussed the 6 generally agreed upon previous constitutional crises, almost all of which were war-related, but indicated that in his opinion, the current erosion of American's Constitutional rights was the most pervasive and the most insidious. I think he is right. And it scares me that so many people seem to unthinkingly accept the loss of their Constitional rights as if its no big deal. It is. Those basic rights are what we are purportedly fighting for when we say that we want to "allow" the Iraquis to create a democratic form of government, whether they want it or not. They are the same rights that are being eroded here on a daily basis.
I read with some degree of dismay the amount of revisionist history that is being spouted here by some. As best as I can recall, we didn't invade Iraq due to terrorism issues. At least purportedly, we invaded Iraq because it wasn't complying with various UN resolutions that we unilaterally decided to enforce -- a decision that even the UN disagreed with. By the way, I think the UN is, on the whole, pretty much a worthless organization. Nonetheless, it strikes me as both extremely disingenuous and hugely ironic that we can unilaterally decide to invade a country to enforce resolutions that the entity issuing them, of which we are a member, chooses not to enforce, then later use our propaganda/disinformation machine to convice many, if not most, of our citizens that the reason we went there in the first place was to fight terrorism. That is a pure crock of ****. Ted Z, if you truly believe that nonsense, and the nonsense you spouted about the similarities between this problem and those involving Nazi Germany [which we stayed strictly out of, while the Nazis were committing incredible atrocities, until they declared war on us], then I suggest that you need to read more and think more. The comparison you attempt to make is inapt at best.
As for Bush, I agree that he made a great speech after 9/11. His writers are to be commended. He then proceeded to completely trample our civil liberties and constitutional rights, in the name of fighting the war on terror. In fact in my opinion, he violated the very Constitution he swore to uphold and defend and, I think it is clear, authorized things that we as a nation purport to abhore. Among other things, he sanctioned torture, confinement for unlimited periods of time, violation of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments, etc. Those sorts of things violate not just our laws, but international laws and conventions. Consequently, by not only condoning but authorizing those sorts of activities, it seems to me that Bush has lost whatever moral high ground he might once have held. It also seems to me that we, as a society, almost always lose when our "leader's" position is that the end justifies the means. That is the position that has historically been taken by all of those dicatators that our schoolbooks tell our kids are evil.
I guess it all comes down to who's ox is getting gored. In that regard, I understand the slipery-slope argument (which I think suffers problems of proof), that by violating the Constitition, American lives were saved here at home. Maybe so. However, aren't those same American lives being lost over-seas in defense of purported Constitutional ideals that are currently being violated at home? How can we say that we want to bring a democratic, constitutional regime to Iraq [whether they want it or not, which is yet another issue], when our President no longer respects the very constitutional rights he is purporting to fight for?
Joann is right -- Dubya is by far the worst President that our nation has ever had to endure. I think history will judge him harshly. It should. To say he deserves harsh judgment is kind.
All that being said, I also agree with Mr. Klein that we must support the troops. They're there, generally not of their choosing, but because they were sent there by people with a political agenda -- people whose own children are not and will not ever be there. Nonetheless, that fact does not diminish their efforts or their sacrifice. It simply makes the fact that we are losing them that much more tragic. 'Nuff said.
Kenny Cole