FRIST!
Anonymous | 02.08.07 - 7:44 am | #

And it is only those who are acting illegally who are desperate to avoid judicial scrutiny of their behavior.

Glenn,
I don't buy this argument as it can easily be stretched to cover all sorts of what should be private behavior. For instance, my wife and are homeschool our kids. Home educators, by and large, are law-abiding citizens who merely want to be left alone to raise our kids the way we best see fit. We are constantly fighting a rear-guard action against regulators who would like to increase the supervision of all homeschools. One of the most consistent arguments they present is that "if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't object to the increased regulations." In their minds, they are protecting the (very few) kids who might be abused and/or slip through the cracks. To us, they're punishing the many for the crimes of the few.
Daryl Cobranchi | Homepage | 02.08.07 - 8:04 am | #

haloscan is not letting me post, this is just a test
xxxx | 02.08.07 - 8:07 am | #

When even the Bush administration's top General publicly repudiates their principal weapon of coercion, it is a clear sign of how weakened and discredited they have become.

Of course the problem remains that you can't claim to be spreading democracy if your not willing to practice it.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 02.08.07 - 8:10 am | #

I don't buy this argument as it can easily be stretched to cover all sorts of what should be private behavior.

I don't agree. I do agree that this principle has limited applicability and that it can be abused, in precisely the way you say. But it is also the case that government officials, acting in their official capacity, are supposed to be monitored and checked in a way that parents, in their private raising of their children, are not.

Efforts as extreme and relentless as the Bush administration has engaged in, devoted to blocking Congressional oversight and judicial scrutiny, seem clearly motivated by a desire to conceal wrongdoing, not by some sense that it is too intrusive or annoying to have to explain or justify themselves (which, again, may be a sentiment appropriate for a parent with regard to the state, but not elected officials with regard to the Congress and the courts, let alone public debates).
Glenn Greenwald | 02.08.07 - 8:20 am | #

I want to comment "Damn straight!" after every post Glenn makes.
Will | Homepage | 02.08.07 - 8:25 am | #

Having usurped the daily "topic" in
DC with all this posturing and posing
over increasing Iraq troop level the
Bush2WH and GOP have succeeded at
derailing any train of intent of new
DEM run Congress. It is certain this
was the strategy selected to waylay,
cul-de-sac and roadblock any effort
to change direction in Iraq. Sadly it
appears to be working. If the Congress
is not able to take on Iraq headon and
put in much needed light of day look
and see on Bush2WH crazy talk and the
wrongheadedness this Bush2WH thrives
on the end of Iraq War will only grow
more terrible and consequential.
Clearly WashingtonDC has entered a
dangerous zone of money politics and
paper thin ethical conduct regarding
the exercise of political power and
willingness to simply do what is right
and needful. The rot and decay that
undergirds all this is plain to see.
Sound governance,profiles in bravery
of thought,action and integrity all
now lacking. The consequences of
this are truly going to be terrible
for all Americans. The self-deception
and disregard for truth and facts now
overtaking WashingtonDC open upon and
out to American decline. It is very
doubtful WashingtonDC or the USA
in general has any grasp of the
moral,fiscal and social peril that is
approaching.
R.Ashen | 02.08.07 - 8:36 am | #

Anonymous Liberal :

http://anonymousliberal.com/2007/02/paranoia-and- authoritarianism-at.html
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Paranoia and Authoritarianism at the National Review
...Cliff May was the first to vent...
...Mark Steyn immediately seconded...
...Jonathan Adler finally stepped in and tried to stem the lunacy...
...Andy McCarthy weighed in...
...Adler again tried to talk some sense...

...Ted Olson and Charles Fried were among Stimson's prominent critics...

...McCarthy responded with a second unhinged rant...
...Mark Levin weighed in...
...what Steyn, McCarthy, May, and Levin all exhibit is an utter inability to even comprehend how normal, non-authoritarian people think...
...Unlike the crew at the Corner, we non-authoritarians believe...
...UPDATE: Andy McCarthy won't let this issue go. He delivers another long rant...

http://defenddemocracy.org/biographies/ biographies.htm
FDD : Foundation for Defense of Democracies
BIOGRAPHIES
BOARD OF ADVISORS : ...Sen. Charles E. Schumer...
SENIOR FELLOWS : ...Andrew C. McCarthy, Legal Commentator...

Fear the dreaded Right Wing Noise Machine, the 21st Century Cthulu!
The Commissar | Homepage | 02.08.07 - 8:53 am | #

"It is only those who are losing a debate who have a desire to suppress it. And it is only those who are acting illegally who are desperate to avoid judicial scrutiny of their behavior. "

The administration is fully engaged in "barricade mode". Totally on the defensive. Lawyered up, and retreating.

While one despises the barricades and those manning them, they also represent an improvement in our situation--and mark how the struggle has shifted.

I only hope that those in this battle won't forget the true goal--which is not just the removal of certain persons, but the reversal of certain statutes, rules, and policies.
casual observer | 02.08.07 - 8:55 am | #

"It is only those who are losing a debate who have a desire to suppress it. And it is only those who are acting illegally who are desperate to avoid judicial scrutiny of their behavior. "

The administration is fully engaged in "barricade mode". Totally on the defensive. Lawyered up, and retreating.

While one despises the barricades and those manning them, they also represent an improvement in our situation--and mark how the struggle has shifted.

I only hope that those in this battle won't forget the true goal--which is not just the removal of certain persons, but the reversal of certain statutes, rules, and policies.
casual observer | 02.08.07 - 8:55 am | #

But, but, but . . . the White House has the
The Heretik | Homepage | 02.08.07 - 9:02 am | #

With respect to Stimpson, McCarthy, May, et al., from Eric Muller:

In World War II, the federal government and the American Bar Association explicitly called on American attorneys to undertake the legal representation of internees of Japanese ancestry -- citizens and aliens alike.

http://www.isthatlegal.org/ archi...ully_stims.html
MD | 02.08.07 - 9:03 am | #

McCarthy's entire argument becomes perfectly clear (and sympathetic even) if one remembers that he has no understanding of the distinction between people "accused of terrorist conspiracy" and "guilty of terrorist conspiracy". Of course, this is an egregious mistake coming from a former prosecutor, and it's even more so when one considers the dozens of innocent people already released from Gitmo. Did the lawyers defending those people who have been subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing also "help the enemy wage war against us"?
BChurch | 02.08.07 - 9:05 am | #

Haloscan ate . . . but, but the White House has the rock star Patreaus. The triumph of style matters in inverse proportion to substance. Rarely has less meant more.

When politicians begin to care about what they say and not how they look, we might have a chance. Maybe. Maybe not.
The Heretik | Homepage | 02.08.07 - 9:07 am | #

That was preceded by The Corner's Clifford May's dissemination of absolutely reckless and fact-free innuendo that these lawyers are receiving secret payments from Saudi Arabia and other Terrorists helpers.

Let's see. Who else receives payments from Saudi Arabia? Hmmm, can't remember.

Or is it the secrecy that offends? Well, as we know, if there's no evidence for it, it must be secret.
Baldie McEagle | 02.08.07 - 9:10 am | #

A bit off-topic but since you used Pace as an example, I am increasingly persuaded that while he cannot say this openly and directly, he is trying to send congress an indirect message that they are free if not welcome to start taking action to end the war and that he will support them in this or at least not actively resist it. I say this because of several things that he's said in recent days before both houses's armed services committees.

One, the quote that you gave that completely undermines the administration and its lapdogs rediculous meme that debating the war endangers our troops. Pace knows this, and while he didn't have to say it, he did, knowing full well that this would undercut the administration and its supporters.

Two, when asked before the senate armed services committee, he has confirmed that if funds were cut off for the war in the new budget, they would have to be out by the fall. He did not seem anxious to pursuade them to not do this. It almost seemed like he wanted them to do this.

Three, he has contradicted the administration in others ways in the fairly recent past, saying that Al Qaida was not that big a threat in most of Iraq (except Anbar), that this was essentially a civil war, that Iraqi troops were not yet ready to assume independant command, and so on.

I think that Pace may well have had it with the administration and has decided to work within the system to undermine their effort to extend the war, in doing so protecting the military (which is his professional and moral duty) and US interests. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here, but why would he break ranks with them so openly on some of their main talking points? I don't see any other way to look at this. If I'm onto something here, I'm sure that he's not doing this alone, but in concert with other high-ranking officers (Abizaid, Petreaus) and perhaps even Gates.

Excuse the venture into tinfoil hat land, but could we be seeing the makings of a beaurocratic military rebellion against BushCo? The stakes are so enormous, and the military and US interests stand so much to lose if this war is allowed to go on (let alone if Iran is attacked) that I can see the officers finally biting the bullet and doing it.

What do people think? Am I just dreaming or could there be something here?
kovie | 02.08.07 - 9:11 am | #

I only hope that those in this battle won't forget the true goal--which is not just the removal of certain persons, but the reversal of certain statutes, rules, and policies.

Yes. Exactly. Not another Iran-Contra. This time we have to go after the SYSTEMIC ills in our system that allow such people to gain and abuse power so egregiously. For one thing, the power of the executive has to be cut down to what the founders intended--the executor of congress and the peoples' will, not of his or her own crazy agenda. For starters, new laws need to be passed specifying what powers the executive has in today's hi-tech world. And there need to be permanent oversight mechanisms in place, like the GAO and CBO. No more imperial presidents!
kovie | 02.08.07 - 9:17 am | #

One more historical note:

John Adams, in 1770, participated in the defense of the British soldiers put on trial for the Boston Massacre.

I do not know, however, if he was paid by Saudi interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Bos...of_the_soldiers
MD | 02.08.07 - 9:27 am | #

Kovie: "What do people think? Am I just dreaming or could there be something here?"

I don't disagree with your thesis, but this general trend (including Casey and Abizaid) has been going on for some time. Let's hope it's widespread, and entails Iran.

In any case, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Pace is outside the chain of command, which runs downward from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the various combatant commands (such as Fallon at CentCom).

"After the 1986 reorganization of the military undertaken by the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the Joint Chiefs of Staff do not have operational command of U.S. military forces. Responsibility for conducting military operations goes from the President to the Secretary of Defense directly to the heads of the Unified Combatant Commands and thus bypasses the Joint Chiefs of Staff completely."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Joi...chiefs_of_staff
MD | 02.08.07 - 9:34 am | #

What do people think? Am I just dreaming or could there be something here?
kovie | 02.08.07 - 9:11 am

Yes, I think you're on to something. If there has been a shift at the Pentagon, I believe it may have been helped when the Admin. scapegoated the Iraq military command, as part of bringing Petraeus in. McCain and Graham helped them do it at the Senate hearings. Bush admitted 'mistakes were made'--mind you, carefully phrased to imply the mistakes were not his, but he would generously and bravely accept reponisbility for them. Rice herself, long ago, notoriously mentioned errors of "tactics", rather than strategy. All this aimed at the military leadership.

One is tempted to think that every high-ranking general saw themselves in that senate hearing seat--taking the heat for the administration. If I had a high position in the Pentagon, I wouldn't be in a charitable frame of mind regarding the WH.
casual observer | 02.08.07 - 9:41 am | #

kovie,

A coup has brewed for quite some time.

The Pentagon rumblers were thrown a bone when Rummy was fired, but when Bush blamed the military for his own blunders it was back, and stronger.

Just sayin.....
IntelVet | 02.08.07 - 9:53 am | #

Hey, if the White House has nothing to hide, they shouldn't be afraid of us knowing what they are doing, right?
Fraud Guy | 02.08.07 - 10:06 am | #

Bush admitted 'mistakes were made'--mind you, carefully phrased to imply the mistakes were not his, but he would generously and bravely accept reponisbility for them.

The whole concept of the war is wrong from the point of view that it is a war of policy, of choice.

The funny or not so funny thing is the Commander in Chief (of the Armed Forces Only)is all too willing to dump this on other people's laps. Bremer is will get blamed too. TPM Muckraker:

It's a quandary. Is L. Paul Bremer, the former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, being unfairly scapegoated as the reason for U.S. failure in Iraq?

Here's the link for the current newsletter from FDD ("Foundation for Defense of Democracies") President Clifford D. May.

http://defenddemocracy.org/publications/ publications_show.htm?doc_id=461854

Mr. May's newsletter praises Cully Stimson, Mark Steyn, and Newt Gingrich.

FDD is a successor to EMET, which was a bipartisan pro-Israel group.

FDD now describes itself as "non-partisan" (because it has a few figleaf Democrats, such as Senator Schumer) but FDD is clearly associated with the most authoritarian wing of the GOP.

Where does Senator Schumer stand? He just wrote a book (see http://nytimes.com/2007/01/26/books/26Book.html) about his views and values. Does Schumer actually stand with the traditional American values in his book? Or does he stand with May, Stimson, Steyn, Gingrich, and McCarthy?

Schumer has a right to support Israel and to work with bipartisan coalitions that support Israel, but why should Schumer endorse FDD, which seems to exists primarily not to support pro-Israel projects, but to subsidize anti-American projects such as Andy McCarthy's blogging at "The Corner" and Cliff May's blogging at "The Corner".

(You'd think those right-wing guys would be supporting their blogging via paid subscribers and tip jars and web ads, if they believe in free markets, eh?)
sysprog | 02.08.07 - 10:36 am | #

kovie - I also think that military commanders such as Pace are the group of people most aware of the all-too-real negative consequences on the military of the upcoming 'quest' against Iran. I'm guessing that one of their motivations is to try and slow down, if not stop that train, to the extent they can.
JimLanc | 02.08.07 - 10:38 am | #

More from Specter/Pace/Rummy in May of last year on the same subject.

Pace: "So as far as morale of the force: no impact, Sir."
Flamethrower | 02.08.07 - 10:39 am | #

Is Paul Bremer being unfairly scapegoated? Scapegoated, yes. Unfairly? I don't think so. He was after all the Incompetent In Charge when the whole clusterf*** came together.

As for intelligent discussion on Iraq I highly recommend American Respect's report
Tom | Homepage | 02.08.07 - 10:45 am | #

holoscan strikes again. It left off the url for the American Respect article.

Just try www.americanrespect.com.
Tom | Homepage | 02.08.07 - 10:48 am | #

Yes. Exactly. Not another Iran-Contra. This time we have to go after the SYSTEMIC ills in our system that allow such people to gain and abuse power so egregiously.

I think you're falling into a trap here. It isn't systems that guarantee freedoms, it is liberty-minded people and the traditions they support. The exact same conditions that allow liberty to happen are the same as what allows tyrants to happen.

Was it Patrick Henry that said the tree of liberty must occasionally be nourished with the blood of patriots? That was what he was talking about, and note that pretty much the same argument is being used as to why patriots today have to go to Iraq to die.

Beware simple solutions. That's the conservative/authoritarian trap.
Alan | 02.08.07 - 10:52 am | #

Alan: It isn't systems that guarantee freedoms, it is liberty-minded people and the traditions they support.

Word. The traditions of liberty atrophy without real people who live by them. Everyone in our country used to know this.
William Timberman | 02.08.07 - 10:59 am | #

Alan: 'The exact same conditions that allow liberty to happen are the same as what allows tyrants to happen.'

I think sysprog's point is valid. Compared with a 19th century president, the current position holds much, much more power. In part, this is something that the framers were trying to avoid, and they were worried about how to create a system of government that fostered freedom without allowing the rise of a tyrant. That's what the balance between different branches was supposed to correct for, and what free debate was supposed to make clear to everyone.

Now it looks like when the congress is little more than a carpet, the president can go where he chooses, even if it is the path of tyranny. I, for one, think that rule of law, freedem of speech (including anti-war statements), and a strong bill of rights are, or should be, important impediments to the development of tyranny. Unfortuantely, it seems they can only work when there are citzens and elected officials with sufficient bravery, skill and tenacity to make use of them.
chemical | 02.08.07 - 11:07 am | #

The "tree of liberty" comment is Jefferson's.

The stifling of debate suggests to me precisely how weak the administration is right now; were they confident in their policies, surely they'd have placed far more emphasis on that meme only occasionally floated by Bush: history as the final judge of the Iraq conflict.

But then, these are the guys who -- in the words of that oft-quoted staffer -- believe history is irrelevant because they're constantly (re)making their own reality for the rest of us to "judiciously" study. No wonder they never learned and now fear learning history's lessons.
Joe Propinka | 02.08.07 - 11:12 am | #

Fucking Gen Pace. How can he be so willfully stupid? It must be the power he feels

"don't have a clue how democracy works."

Why, didn't they get the manual? Playing hookey at school that day? You never mentioned it? No clue? Really? That's why things are so fucked up? Isn't the the "bigotry of low expectations?"
Perception Managers | Homepage | 02.08.07 - 11:17 am | #

It would seem, Perception Managers, that you've missed the point entirely: Pace isn't saying that the enemy is literally ignorant of the structure and workings of democracy, but rather that their perception of debate in a democracy as weakness suggests that they perceive democracy's process itself as weakness...and in that, are deeply mistaken about democracy at a very different level than the clumsy literalism you apply in your interpretation.
Joe Propinka | 02.08.07 - 11:33 am | #

MD's comment about John Adams and the trial of British soldiers for the Boston Massacre is brilliant and quite relevant to Steyn's disgusting antipathy towards fair trials.

Our 2nd president-to-be not only defended these soldiers-- foreign agents who had killed American civilians on American soil-- in a civilian criminal court, he did so rigorously and faithfully enough that 6 of them were acquitted. One can imagine the hatred that Steyn must feel towards one of our founding fathers for not only allowing for a fair trial of the accused, but actually providing his own services in their defense.
BChurch | 02.08.07 - 11:46 am | #

It would seem, Perception Managers, that you've missed the point entirely: Pace isn't saying that the enemy is literally ignorant of the structure and workings of democracy, but rather that their perception of debate in a democracy as weakness suggests that they perceive democracy's process itself as weakness...
Joe Propinka

Not unlike any neocon, this maladministration and most of the GOP.
LWM | 02.08.07 - 11:47 am | #

LWM

Hmm, didn't someone say this would be easier as a dictatorship, with them as the decider(oops, dictator).
Fraud Guy | 02.08.07 - 11:53 am | #

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Glo...y/ IB07Dj01.html

Soon, the neocon game is going to come to a close. Why doesn't the NYT publish essays like this one posted at Asia Times...trouble is brewing
Mary | 02.08.07 - 11:56 am | #

Hearing General Pace on the radio last night made me prouder to be an American than I've felt in a long time. You've got Bush supporters agitating for something very much like a military dictatorship, and then you've got the nation's top uniformed military commander putting those people in their place, in no uncertain terms. "Period." Beautiful!

As I recall, he also went on to point out that the troops do understand that we are a democracy, so of course democratic debate is not going to hurt their morale. This got me thinking. If you suggest that the troops expect uncritical support from all citizens for any war the administration chooses to fight, isn't that suggesting that our brave troops are all fascists at heart? I'm not going to appoint myself to be offended on the troops' behalf, but I would certainly tend to resent any insinuation that my own commitment to our nation's democratic ideals was so fragile.
Stephen Stralka | Homepage | 02.08.07 - 12:05 pm | #

Kovie, your comments are extremely alarming. Can you imagine what would happen in Israel if the populace took your advice? It would be the ruin of the entire project.
A little consistency, please.
Mooser | Homepage | 02.08.07 - 12:15 pm | #

It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush by Joe Conason comes out Feb. 20.

Glenn is absolutely correct that they don't understand how democracy works. And what feeds their ability to act in an undemocratic manner is that many in the general public also don't understand how democracy works.

After two hundred some years of living in a democracy, too many people have taken their freedoms for granted.

In his book on Thomas Paine, Craig Nelson notes that where as today kids dream of growing up to be firemen and astronauts, the founders dreamed of growing up to be Roman orators. They dreamed of creating a country that echoed the era of the Roman republic. They thought of Julius Ceasar as one of the greatest villians in the course of human history; and there was an incident that I can't recalled from memory in Roman history which they viewed as an early slide to Empire which the founders took the lesson that it is the civic minded citizens duty to take alarm at the first experiment on the public's liberties.

This is why they thought that a tea tax was a sign of impending tyranny, which spiraled into the the colonies declaring their independence (thanks to some prodding from the recently arrived from Britain Tom Paine, who was able to see himself as a citizen of the colonies because he viewed things throught the prism of what is right "without regard to place or person")

George W. Bush's theory of a unitary executive, his signing statements overturning the laws duly enacted by the representatives of the people, his ignoring of laws already enacted ... these are the sorts of things that the founders listed in their bill of particulars against King George III in the Declaration of Independence.
m.b.f. | 02.08.07 - 12:22 pm | #

Oops, and I meant to say, we need to work on enculturing that democratic idealism that the founders had.
m.b.f. | 02.08.07 - 12:24 pm | #

Groupthink is incredibly popular with the neocons, so much so that they believe in evangelizing it. Why is it that no media, or even the Democrats themselves, won't call them out on their blatant groupthink practices?
brian | 02.08.07 - 12:32 pm | #

Andrew Sullivan :

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/ the_daily_dish/2007/02/bushs_america.html
The ATLANTIC online
ANDREW SULLIVAN The Daily Dish
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Bush's America
The United Nations gets 58 countries to sign a long-negotiated treaty prohibiting governments from "disappearing" individuals or keeping anyone in secret detention. A no-brainer, right? The United States is defined by its refusal to indulge in such totalitarian, police state practices. Well, it was. But not under this president. The U.S. won't sign.
--Andrew Sullivan

The "tree of liberty" comment is Jefferson's.

Ah. Thank you, I should really check my quote attributions before posting. In these days of Google there is no excuse.
Alan | 02.08.07 - 1:03 pm | #

chemical said,
Compared with a 19th century president, the current position holds much, much more power. In part, this is something that the framers were trying to avoid, and they were worried about how to create a system of government that fostered freedom without allowing the rise of a tyrant.

I agree. It is also the rise in federal power that has strengthened the office of president. I will also give a double "word" to Alan. We allowed this to happen. For decades we have held partisan interests and single issues in higher regard than the traditions of liberty.

I believe the Bush administration is not an aberration but the logical conclusion to the compromises we have made.
thelastnamechosen | 02.08.07 - 1:05 pm | #

Sysprog,

What has gotten lost to a certain extent, is just how many countries who even now protest the US's dissappearing people quietly were aiding the program.

Germany comes to mind. Khaled al-Masri could not have been dissappeared without Gernmany's help. Canada did something similar with Maher Arar. Publically they were speaking out on his behalf, privately they were helping feed info to the US.
m.b.f. | 02.08.07 - 1:06 pm | #

It was little consolation to see the Washington Times' declarative front page headline today: "War Foes Will Not Hurt Morale".

It's true now that Gates and Pace have said it.
brendan | 02.08.07 - 1:10 pm | #

And as an aside, on Bill O'Reilly, Michael Scheur, who claims to be the original author of the rendition program, said that if he were in charge of things he would recapture al-Masri and "rendition" him again.

How insane is that? Can you imagine what the consequences would be for the United States if they recaptured Masri now?
m.b.f. | 02.08.07 - 1:11 pm | #

m.b.f.:

And as an aside, on Bill O'Reilly, Michael Scheur, who claims to be the original author of the rendition program, said that if he were in charge of things he would recapture al-Masri and "rendition" him again.

Sounds like Scheur is asking to be "rendered" .... but first things first, his bosses at the front of the line.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 02.08.07 - 1:14 pm | #

http://michellemalkin.com/archiv...ives/ 006839.htm

Ok, now Malkin is advocating use of a "Snake Eater" is Iraq, bascially its racial profiling on super mega Captain America steroids.
m.b.f. | 02.08.07 - 1:14 pm | #

Reminds me of Rush Limbaugh, who after years of vociferous support of drug enforcement and minimum mandatory sentencing, and railing against defense lawyers and liberal judges, used every legal loophole and civil liberties trick-in-the-book to avoid prosecution on drug charges – when not a thinking person alive didn’t think he’s committed multiple drug felonies. I’m sure if any of these loons who slam the Guantanamo pro bono defense lawyers ever got in a similar bind they’d exhibit the same shameful hypocrisy.
yahuda cohn | 02.08.07 - 1:59 pm | #

Glenn wrote:
"And it is only those who are acting illegally who are desperate to avoid judicial scrutiny of their behavior."

This is incredibly close to "why fear gov't wiretapping if you have nothing to hide" While I know that is not what you are saying, it is the same mindset. That merely trying to protect your rights is evidence of guilt. There are lots of reasons to avoid judicial scrunity, including "National Security" and not all of them are evidence of illegal activity.

To be perfectly clear, I do not think the the current adminstration wants to avoid judical scrunity for any other reason than they are, in fact, breaking just about every law on the books. But the statement that "only those who are acting illegally who are desperate to avoid judicial scrutiny of their behavior" is just not true.
DarthTed | 02.08.07 - 2:16 pm | #

DarthTed,

I think the bigger issue is that so many administration supporters parrot that phrase's mindset that it has to be reflected back at them enough times that they may get the point that maybe, just maybe, an administration that goes to extraordinary and intricate measures to hide information from its citizens might have something unsavory to hide, too.

I have talked to many people who have this unwavering trust in the government that borders on the monomaniacal, and I have to give them example after example until they finally say "wait, that doesn't make sense" and the wall of mirrors falls down. To watch them go from confusion, to disbelief, to horror, to pissed off and willing to take action is quite the experience.

And then they get the point that some things are okay to keep hidden, but not everything, in both public, private, and political discourse.
Fraud Guy | 02.08.07 - 2:41 pm | #

Careful with this line of reasoning. After all, it is only the guilty who have something to hide (re: FISA) etc.
bago | 02.08.07 - 4:31 pm | #

Edwards made it clear he agrees with the offense caused to the Malkin and Donohue, apologizes for it, and gets the bloggers to apologize as well.

Hopefully that will appease the extreme right, and they'll leave Edwards' campaign alone from here to the election.

Brilliant strategy.
Max Power | 02.08.07 - 4:49 pm | #

...but wrong thread!
Max Power | 02.08.07 - 4:50 pm | #

in boca al lupe!
lamington | 02.08.07 - 5:21 pm | #

>He, (General pace), added that potential enemies may take some comfort from the rancor but said they "don't have a clue how democracy works."
***********************

I've got real bad news fer ya General Pace; Neither does the White House or the GOP.

What a loser.
James | 02.08.07 - 5:33 pm | #

James,

As pointed out upthread, it is possible that Gen. Pace was alluding to this in the way he phrased his response.
Fraud Guy | 02.09.07 - 1:26 am | #

Well, it's nice to know that some top generals understand how democracy works. Some conspiracy theorists have suggested that IF another terrorist attack occurs that the president would call out troops to enforce martial law. Genral Oace's answer is reassurance that many high ranking military types will not help the President become a dictator.
EZ E | 02.09.07 - 2:45 am | #

Need anybody add that our military isn't a democracy, either?
VJB | 02.09.07 - 2:23 pm | #

Has anyone sat down and tried to picture what martial law would look like in a country of fifty states and 300 million people? The majority of police departments are already strained in term of budgets and employees, and the actual military as we all know is damn tuckered out. I think we would see a brand of scofflawlessness from many facets of society that no one would be expecting.

Let us all now hope that we will not live in more interesting times.
LCforevah | Homepage | 02.09.07 - 5:14 pm | #

Your post's very good. I like it.
-----------------------
Vietnam travel agency
Vietnam holiday
Vietnam tour operator
Vietnam tour | Homepage | 05.09.07 - 10:10 pm | #

I think these blog is really useful for new comers and Excellent resource list.
It´s a very interesting Blog and simple answer of many questions.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks it helps me a lot…
Onlineshop | Homepage | 05.22.07 - 7:59 pm | #

http://www.webmotril.com
http://www.webmotril.com/directo...-web/ index.html

http://www.foros.webmotril.com
los foros
http://www.anuncios.webmotril.com
http://www.webmotril.com/partners3.html
anunciate ya anuncios gratis
http://www.chat.webmotril.com
ven a chatear gratis
http://www.links.webmotril.com


liens gratuits en dur
http://r.guerrero.free.fr/
http://r.guerrero.free.fr/directory/

web directory

http://www.inmobiliaria.webmotril.com
http://www.richard.webmotril.com
http://www.manga.webmotril.com

http://www.internet.webmotril.com

http://www.love.webmotril.com
http://www.movil.webmotril.com

http://pages.over-blog.net/
http://tempsperdu.over-blog.org/

http://angifere.over-blog.com
http://laguiaweb.blogspot.com/
web
portal web | Homepage | 09.08.07 - 2:53 pm | #

Njalepsze serwisy bukmacherskie
John Lock | Homepage | 09.27.07 - 8:52 am | #

Of course, this is an egregious mistake coming from a former prosecutor, and it's even more so when one considers the dozens of innocent people already released from Gitmo
Simone | Homepage | 10.02.09 - 4:23 pm | #

hree, o diğerleri oldukça yakın geçmişte yollarla, bu El Kaide Irak'ın Anbar (hariç) en çok da büyük bir tehdit olduğunu söyleyerek, bu aslında bir iç savaş, Irak birliklerinin henüz hazır idi yönetim çelişki var varsayalım bağımsız komuta, ve diğerleri.

Ben Pace iyi yönetim ile vardı olabilir ve düşünmek sistemi içinde çalışma kararı aldı çabalarını savaş genişletmek için zayıflatmak, böylece koruma yaparken askeri (ki profesyonel ve ahlaki görevidir) ve ABD çıkarlarına. Belki aşırı burada, ama iyimser olmak kulüpler yüzden onlarla çok açıkça bazı temel noktalar üzerinde konuşmaya sırada kıracak? Bu bakmak için başka bir yol göremiyorum
href="http://www.ikincielmobilya.com"> ikinci el eşya
joli | Homepage | 11.19.09 - 5:38 pm | #