More Terrorist Lovers

From the New York Review of Books comes this piece:

We are scholars of constitutional law and former government officials. We write in our individual capacities as citizens concerned by the Bush administration’s National Security Agency domestic spying program, as reported in The New York Times, and in particular to respond to the Justice Department’s December 22, 2005, letter to the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees setting forth the administration’s defense of the program. Although the program’s secrecy prevents us from being privy to all of its details, the Justice Department’s defense of what it concedes was secret and warrantless electronic surveillance of persons within the United States fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance. Accordingly the program appears on its face to violate existing law…

This is important stuff. The question is, will serious discussions about the President’s actions ever happen, or will the “Liberals (=anyone who questions His Highness President Bush) Love Terrorists” line continue to dominate?

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “More Terrorist Lovers

  1. Just admit, Lance, that you hate America. This is why you married an Italian so that you can get EU-citizenship when America slips (deservedly) into the sea. Unpatriotic slime. I bet you don’t even stand when they play the national anthem at ball games. I bet you don’t even know the words. I bet you wouldn’t let your kids say the pledge.

    Like

  2. Lance, where does this myth that anyone who matters is trying to stop people from criticizing the president come from. It’s a classic red herring. All I ever hear along these lines is that if you’re going to make criticisms, make them responsibly. You start with talk of impeachment over an issue that has broad support both among Americans and constitutional scholars and you have veered off the rails of civil and reasonable discourse. The hopped-up Nancy Pelosis of the world are not asking for the right to criticize, they are asking for the right to demonize.Maybe you missed my post from Joe Klein a few days ago–percentages of Americans that support the wiretap policy to those that don’t: 64-23. As Klein (who is well established on the center-left) put it “Whatever your boys in the NYT Review have to say, the legal community (constitutional scholars included, my dad being one of them) are split on the issue. There appear to be strong arguments going both ways. That’s the constitutional issue.On the political issue, the only ones who appear to be concerned about this thing are the ones who have clear political motivations like yourself and Nancy Pelosi.On the issue of getting effective intelligence, it’s a no-brainer. Get over it or prepare to get Schiavoed.

    Like

  3. Hey Prof:First, I’m not sure what you mean by “this myth that anyone who matters is trying to stop people from criticizing the president.” My point– expressed rather sarcastically now– is that pundits and others on the right have frequently resorted to suggestions (or overt statements!) that people who express “liberal” views are in league with terrorists. For instance, Rove, in a speech, said “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” Rush said “The Democrat Party in this country is eager to point to the things bin Laden said and suggest that he’s right, a man who happily murdered 3,000 Americans, and is eager to do so over and over and over again.” Laura Ingraham said “I really think a lot of people are going to get in there and realize they’re aligning themselves, if they support Kerry, with the people of France … with China,” and bin Laden. So I’m not making it up that a common talking point is to suggest that Liberals Love Terrorists.As for your point about polls– you missed my point that other polls say differently. Morover, what good are polls in this case anyhow?!? Since the President’s ratings are in the can, I imagine you’ll be calling for him to step down, right?Your comment “Whatever your boys in the NYT Review have to say, the legal community (constitutional scholars included, my dad being one of them) are split on the issue. There appear to be strong arguments going both ways. That’s the constitutional issue” suggests that you didn’t even bother to READ the ARTICLE! Seriously. It wasn’t written by “my boys” in the NT Review of Books (not NY Times– thats different). The authors (stated in the article that you didn’t read) include:“Curtis Bradley, Duke Law School, former Counselor on International Law in the State Department Legal Adviser’s Office[14]David Cole, Georgetown University Law CenterWalter Dellinger, Duke Law School, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel and Acting Solicitor GeneralRonald Dworkin, NYU Law SchoolRichard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School, Senior Fellow, Hoover InstitutionPhilip B. Heymann, Harvard Law School, former Deputy Attorney GeneralHarold Hongju Koh, Dean, Yale Law School, former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, former Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, DOJMartin Lederman, Georgetown University Law Center, former Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, DOJBeth Nolan, former Counsel to the President and Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal CounselWilliam S. Sessions, former Director, FBI, former Chief United States District JudgeGeoffrey Stone, Professor of Law and former Provost, University of ChicagoKathleen Sullivan, Professor and former Dean, Stanford Law SchoolLaurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law SchoolWilliam Van Alstyne, William & Mary Law School, former Justice Department attorney”So yeah, they sort of know things about law and the Constitution.Regarding “On the political issue, the only ones who appear to be concerned about this thing are the ones who have clear political motivations like yourself and Nancy Pelosi.” You should also add people who like the Constitution: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” But let me guess– you haven’t read that, either.And then, can’t we all get into the ad hom game? Here– on the political issue, the only ones who appear to be supporting this thing are the ones who have clear political motivations like yourself and Dick Cheney. Effective, isn’t it?Finally, I liked this: “On the issue of getting effective intelligence, it’s a no-brainer. Get over it…” Really? It’s good to know that our dipstick President can act against the Constitution and know that people like you will support him with arguments like “get over it.”Oh, and next time: read the article before posting on it. Perhaps you can read it with your dad over dinner. Then, read the Constitution. Then, hope you dont have to tell us to “get over it” when Bush decideds that other parts of the Constitution don’t matter.

    Like

Comments are closed.