Tuesday, December 20, 2005

One Toke Over The Line

Of coke if he thought that people wouldn't notice his cumulative abuse of power.
Going Too Far: "The overreaching began with the administration's refusal to hold hearings, as called for by the Geneva Conventions, to determine whether captured fighters deserved prisoner-of-war status and with its decision to set aside Army procedures for handling prisoners under those conventions. It extended to the president's assertion that he could designate any American an enemy combatant and lock him up for as long as he chose, without access to counsel or the courts. It includes his claimed right to kidnap people, even inside allied democracies, to transport them anywhere and to hold them as 'ghost prisoners,' again indefinitely, without allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross any access. Perhaps most shamefully, Mr. Bush has insisted on his right to inflict on detainees treatment that most people would regard as torture. Now added to the list is eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant. And there is probably more that we don't yet know.

A couple of threads run through all of these things. One is the grave harm they've done to U.S. prestige throughout the world and, more specifically, to the United States' ability to demand fair treatment for its soldiers and to urge other nations to respect human rights. The other is how unnecessary most of them seem to be. How would it have set back the war effort to have told the Red Cross the location of detainees? What would have been lost by asking Congress to expand the president's powers to order surveillance, if existing law was too restrictive?"
Umm, power problems? I tried reading Kristol's line of reasoning but had to quit halfway through. It is very easy to blow a hole in his and most right wing rationalizations with this simple argument. If it was Clinton (either of them) would you want them to have this power? I think not. I personally don't want anyone to have this much power, ever. Whether it is a government, corporations, insurers, financial institutions or travel, nobody should be able to follow law abiding citizens and treat them as criminals when they have done nothing but express an opposing point of view or belong to groups that believe you shouldn't harm living animals.

He is trying to force his version of the book of Revelations upon this country. Pretty soon only people with tattooed numbers will be allowed to enjoy what this country had to offer. What I don't understand is why he thinks that God would reward him for harming innocent people or let someone so drunk with power near him, knowing they would have thoughts of taking over. The last one with that type of hubris was cast out.

Update: I'm reading the more conservative stuff today, or at least I'm trying, and I like what he said. I'm not a lawyer so it took a while to wade through the technical stuff, but it looks like the First Renter has a potential impeachment (not that they say it yet) problem.

No comments:

Post a Comment