« Don't Get Stuck: Ledbetter and Congressional Choice | Main | Learning To Get Online Myself »

July 12, 2008


yeah well, whatcha gonna do...

when the leader of your opposition declares up front that they're not going to pursue punishment beyond the dreaded Sternly-Worded Letter, where's the incentive to bother obeying the law?

When both candidates for the next President support (and one actually votes for) legislation to ensure that the criminal actions of the current President won't be prosecuted, what's the incentive to obey the law?

While I am as disappointed at Obama's cave as everybody else, Jes, it is kind of crazy talk to suggest even minutely that George W. Bush was waiting on implied permission from him to break the law.

I don't believe I suggested that, mightygodking.

With the new FISA legislation, the principle that the President rules above the law that Bush & Co adopted, is now openly supported by Obama (and, one presumes, also by McCain - since if he could remember what he thought about FISA it would probably be "I support Bush's decision").

The US has been heading towards this for thirty-five years or more, of course. But it's now the law: the President can tell you to break the law and you cannot be prosecuted, because the President's command overrides the laws.

Bush assumed the right to do that: Obama voted it into legislation: your President is now your king.

It’s maybe just their back-up, in case they can’t follow through on their mandate to bring the world Apocalypse starting with a holocaust on the Plain of Megiddo, popularly referred to as Armageddon.
Dubya wants to go down in history, if there is to be any, as the President who told the World to go to Hell.

He’s doggedly consistent.
And maybe he’ll succeed, after all.

...and I wrote both the above comments before reading Glenn Greenwald's latest.

Well, the Founders were clearly just a bunch of extremist liberals with no appreciation for the needs of the executive to keep us safe from harm. I just wish Fox News had been around in the late 18th century to keep the public better-informed about its own safety. It might have saved an unsightly 200-year digression where the liberal rabble rousers stirred up the populace to refuse to accept its God-given role as little people.

Good thing we're back to the divine order of things.

In other news, the EPA estimate of the dollar value of a human life dropped from $7.8 billion to $6.9 billion over the last five years of the Bush Administration.

This estimate is used to calculate the cost and need for regulation, among other items. The less a person costs, the less justification for regulations.

I just mortgaged myself for the $7.8 billion figure. I'm a subprime human.

This just in: the estimate of the worth of a fetus remains priceless. An adult person is worth walking around money, adults being merely depreciating fetuses.

I'm against abortion but pro-choice, but these calculations from the various constituencies of the Republican Party are .... ghoulish.

Very sick people elected very sick people.

I repeat: ghouls!

Liberal blogger hilzoy has decided not to take any new steps to reduce her driving speed on the highways

You're able to justify driving? How nice for you.


Yet more deflation.

Guys, this "Bush invented American lawlessness" meme has started to get old. I despise Bush as much as anyone, but if you want to know how deep (and far) the rot goes, google "Andrew Jackson" with "trail of tears", and if you want and example of lawless government that persists to this day, google fort Laramie Treaty 1868. George W. Bush has long antecedants.

And take comfort in this: what one Congress enacted, another can repeal, the FISA act covers civil and not criminal liability, and only covers a set of relatively minor offences. Should officials from this administration find themselves in the Hague for war crimes, or before an American court a decade hence for environmental cimes, FISA won't provide them with much of a fig leaf.

George W. Bush has long antecedants.

Jackson et al are long dead. Can't do a thing about them now.

Bush is with us, here and now.

Thanks -

"But it's now the law: the President can tell you to break the law and you cannot be prosecuted, because the President's command overrides the laws."

This doesn't seem to be particularly true.

A special case of "the President asked some people to break the law, and they won't be prosecuted" seems to be true.

But getting from one to the other seems to need a bridge that doesn't, in fact, exist.

But IANAL, so if any actual American lawyers actually agree with Jesurgislac's formulation, I'll certainly be very interested.

And surprised.

Of course, maybe this is just another typical case of me being all nit-picky about minor things like what is and isn't legal.

Honestly, there are days one just wants to give up on the whole thing.

The comments to this entry are closed.