Speaking Truth to Power Posted by: Dale Franks
on Friday, January 13, 2006
In the Alito hearings today, the Democrats have a panel of people like Kate Michaelman, former NARAL bigwig, and the like. Naturally, they are all testifying that Judge Alito is a horrific choice for the Supreme Court, and he'll destroy personal rights, yadda, yadda, yadda.
So, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), when he finished his questions, told the panel that he appreciated their courage, for appearing in front of the panel, because it's, you know, so difficult to stand up in public and disagree with the president of the United States.
Yeah. Because, you know, the FBI is constantly breaking down the doors of the president's opponents in Gestapo-like midnight raids that result in the president's enemies disappearing into the nacht und nebel.
It just takes so much courage to speak out against the administration in Chimpy McBushitlerburton's fascist America. If it wasn't for the samizdata available through secret organs like Meet the Press, Face the Nation, This Week, and Situation Room, why, we'd hardly even know about these brave dissidents, many of whom have been sent into internal exile to the island of Manhattan.
Maybe, maybe not. The Democrats knew darn well they work and be able to stop this nomination before they even sat down to the hearings. On that basis then there’s only one logical explanation for the ferocity of their attack on the Judge; political points at the next cycle.
It’s only under that set of conditions that their behaviorcould be considered as well reasoned.
Yeah. Because, you know, the FBI is constantly breaking down the doors of the president’s opponents in Gestapo-like midnight raids that result in the president’s enemies disappearing into the nacht und nebel.
Hey Dale - ever hear of Jose Padilla? Your service in support of the Bush admininstration is admirable, as always. But never once have you come out and condemned the power grab that the Padilla case represents. Not once. And what the Bush administration has maintained in the Padilla case is that it has the right to lock up a citizen indefinitely without access to the courts.
Not much different from the extreme example you cite, above. In fact, materially indistinguishable. IF Padilla is innocent, there is not much to distinguish him from your example.
Now, I know you would respond something along the lines as follows: "But Bush said he was an ’Enemy Combatant,’ not an opponent of the Bush administraion. So the cases are different."
No Dale, they are not. So long as the desingation of "Enemy Combatant" is unreviewable by the courts, it is meaningless. Bush could come tomorrow and lock you up as an "Enemy Combatant." And there is not a damm thing you could do about it. Bye bye, Dale.
I don’t know if Padilla is guilty or not. And neither will you, unless you are prepared to take Bush’s word for it. Which makes it all the more fascinating that you would weigh in on a judicial nomination. After all, who needs judges; you seem perfectly happy with the Bush administration bypassing ther courts altogther.
You seem bright, Dale. But all the lessons of history seem lost on you. You seem quite willing to toss constitutional rights aside if that is what Bush believes is the best thing to do. You seem to believe that this is some kind of exceptional moment in US history that allows the president to lock citizens up indefinitely. (Ever heard of the cold war? Nuclear annihilation? Which president claimed then the powers Bush is now claiming?) And in your service of power, you seem to take delight in criticizing anyone who would suggest the Bush administration is trying to intimidate or spy on those who don’t march lockstep with it.
No, that could not be happening at all.
From the NYT, 12/20/05:
One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group’s "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau’s interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
I have never understood why this web site has never understood the gravity of the Padilla case or come right out and slammed the Bush administration for acting like the Nazis cited in your hypothetical. My guess is that those who comment on this site are actually more in love with government power, paticularly the power to deny incarcerated persons access to the courts, than with libertaritan principles. Perhaps inside every libertarian is a self-loathing authoritarian. But I don’t know that.
Hey Dale - ever hear of Jose Padilla? Your service in support of the Bush admininstration is admirable, as always. But never once have you come out and condemned the power grab that the Padilla case represents.
I have never understood why this web site has never understood the gravity of the Padilla case ....
I have read your posts about Padilla and the Bush administration. And I stand by what I said: You do not understand the gravity of the case. If you did, you would be calling for impeachment proceedings. If it is an impeachable offense to lie under oath about a sexual affair in a private lawsuit, it is an impeachable offense to hold a US citizen indefinitely. And yet, you have not once called for impeachment proceedings, or prosecuting lesser government officials. Not once. You don’t get it.
Here is your remedy:
Moreover, Congress should set firm rules for the detention and/or trial of American citizens who the Administration declares to be "enemy combatants". As the case of Jose Padilla illustrates, the default position of the Administration is that American citizens who are declared to be "enemy combatants" is that they can be held indefinitely without trial.
Ooooooooh. Firm rules. Ouch. What are you going to call for next, that Congress take Bush’s lunch money away?
If you really believe that Bush has broken the law by holding Padilla indefinitely, then it follows that you must call for Bush to resign or be impeached. It is certainly a "high crime or misdemeanor" to imprison an American citizen for years without access to the courts.
Like I said, you just don’t get it.
More to the point, since Chimpy McBush has indefinitely detained an American citizen for over three years, how is that different from the Nazis coming in the middle of the night and throwing a German