Drocket
CAGiversary!
As anyone who isn't a complete Republican shill knows, Bush has repeatedly violated the law by spying on American citizens without a warrant. The Republican-controlled Congress has responded to this treasonous act by proposing to change the law to make it harder for Bush to break in the future. We now have the Bush administration's response to these proposed changes, which you can read here and here (warning: they're PDF files.)
To sum things up: The Bush administration certainly respects Congress's right to change the law. Bush may even sign the changes into law. But Bush feels absolutely no responsibility to follow the new law, regardless of what it may actually be.
Bush has declared himself (again) to be completely above the law. He has the sole right to decide what the law is, and is the sole judge, jury, and executioner of that law. He is, in essence, King.
Its quite funny to compare and contrast the response to Bush's declaration with Clinton's perjury charge. Back in '97/'98, the news networks were filled with a constant stream of talking heads, repeating talking points about no man being above the law, this being a nation of laws, etc, etc. Now - not so much. Can you IMAGINE the response had Clinton simply declared himself to be above the laws that govern mere mortals?
Now we have a president who HAS declared himself to be above the law, and is quite willing to use that power with regards to topics far more important than lying about a BJ. Warrentless wiretaps and physical searches? Of course. Indefinite detention without charges? Not a problem. Shipping suspects to third-world countries to be tortured? You have a problem with that?
And Congress's response to this? Well, we could, you know, Censure him. Maybe. If that's not too extreme... We don't want to look like we're being all political about the President's right to torture people... The media? In breaking news, the missing white girl in Aruba is still missing.
I expect someone here to criticize this post because it is, quite frankly, old news. And that's the problem: when the president declares himself to be above the law, it should NEVER be old news. The fact that this can even be considered 'old news' is a sign of what deep shit we're in.
To sum things up: The Bush administration certainly respects Congress's right to change the law. Bush may even sign the changes into law. But Bush feels absolutely no responsibility to follow the new law, regardless of what it may actually be.
Bush has declared himself (again) to be completely above the law. He has the sole right to decide what the law is, and is the sole judge, jury, and executioner of that law. He is, in essence, King.
Its quite funny to compare and contrast the response to Bush's declaration with Clinton's perjury charge. Back in '97/'98, the news networks were filled with a constant stream of talking heads, repeating talking points about no man being above the law, this being a nation of laws, etc, etc. Now - not so much. Can you IMAGINE the response had Clinton simply declared himself to be above the laws that govern mere mortals?
Now we have a president who HAS declared himself to be above the law, and is quite willing to use that power with regards to topics far more important than lying about a BJ. Warrentless wiretaps and physical searches? Of course. Indefinite detention without charges? Not a problem. Shipping suspects to third-world countries to be tortured? You have a problem with that?
And Congress's response to this? Well, we could, you know, Censure him. Maybe. If that's not too extreme... We don't want to look like we're being all political about the President's right to torture people... The media? In breaking news, the missing white girl in Aruba is still missing.
I expect someone here to criticize this post because it is, quite frankly, old news. And that's the problem: when the president declares himself to be above the law, it should NEVER be old news. The fact that this can even be considered 'old news' is a sign of what deep shit we're in.