So I got depressed a couple of days ago when I heard some disturbing news. It seems that when President Bush signed the revamped version of the Patriot Act into law earlier this year that he issued another one of his signing statements, basically saying how he interprets the law and how he will apply it. The signing statement for this law basically said that Bush will ignore the Congressional oversights that the law requires to protect the rights of citizens whenever he chooses. Which is basically Bush flipping the bird to some of his fellow Republicans and many Democrats in Congress because the Patriot Act was in danger of not being renewed because of concerns that there were no Congressional oversights in place. After those oversights were put in the law passed. And now we get Bush saying the law doesn't apply to him. He's done the same thing over and over again since he took office. The other notorious time was when the McCain bill banning torture got passed. Bush fought tooth and nail to block it but he failed. Seeming to concede defeat, he invited McCain to the signing ceremony, said what a good bill it was (now who's the flip-flopper?), and signed away. Then when no one was around, he issued a signing statement that said he could ignore the law if he chose to. This is friggin' ridiculous. People keep saying how long Bush has gone without vetoing a bill, but he doesn't have to veto it if he can sign it and issue a statement that says it doesn't apply to him. He has done this some 500 times, using the signing statement more forcefully than any president before him. What happened to the Rule of Law? That great indicator of democracy that says everyone is equal under the law and no one, not even our leaders, are above the law.
Speaking of democracy. It seems over the past week or so a man in Afghanistan who had converted to Christianity some 16 years ago is about to go under trial for doing just that, converting to Christianity. Under the Afghani constitution that was put in after the ousting of the Taliban, Sharia (which I'm assuming is some kind of religious law) law is the supreme law of the land and converting to Christianity is punishable by death. Since when is that democracy? Since when is that the "freedom that is on the march" that Bush always talks about in Iraq? What has actually changed in Afghanistan? Ok, so they can vote, but it seems they just get to elect who will persecute them next. That ain't no democracy! Well, you'll be glad to know the man was released and has taken asylum in Italy. But still, the very fact that this actually happened is appalling. And that is the reason of my discontent.
Richard
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Bravo, Mr. S! I've always appreciated the fact that our leaders are intended to (at the very least) be held to the same laws as everyone else. No monarch, no emperor, no demigod.
That's really disappointing and upsetting to hear about George W., although not especially surprising. He and his advisors firmly believe that there are certain instances where it's more important to achieve an objective than to do so lawfully.
Now, I'm not going to naively assume that W is the only President to bend the Law--my guess is that every President has done so at one time or another. However, it shows a lot of cajones and/or stupidity that he would actually telegraph his impending bending of the Law in such a blatant manner, through the signing document.
I mean, if I were a political advisor, I'd be telling the Prez that now is not the time to play out-in-the-open hardball.
About the Afghan issue, it's also not a surprise that the citizens opted for a "theodemocracy" or a "demotheocracy," which, of course, means "a government whereby the people democratically elect their theocratic rulers."
The fatal flaw in the U.S. strategy of spreading democracy, is that nobody wants a government like the U.S. government, except us. So, it sets up a scenario whereby the American people will be perenially disappointed in the outcome.
oh no doubt other presidents have used the signing statement to leave a little wiggle room but i don't remember any to the degree that they use it so they can torture people or step all over the bill of rights. if i heard from news people, reagan was the first president to really use the signing statement to its full potential. this came from the advisement of an administration attorney named (see if this sounds familiar) samuel alito.
i like the term "themocracy". i always knew that the governments in afghanistan and iraq would never emerge to look like a jeffersonian democracy, which is what ours is called, but i at least assumed it would be friendly to human rights. but our government has a history of having another country's oppressive regime overthrown just to have it replaced by: a) another oppressive regime that is friendly to us; or b) a regime that is friendly to us but then later turns into a regime that is oppressive and doesn't like us.
It's unfortunate that, if you're a country other than the U.S., all roads lead to the hatred of the U.S.
And, you are correct that our attempts at nation-building have almost always exploded in our faces...literally and figuratively.
Nation building is also very expensive. the pentagon is estimated to spend an average of 9.8 billion dollars a month in iraq (just iraq, not including afghanistan). that's over 108 billion dollars for this budget year. with that much money you could fix any one problem we face from education, health care, rebuilding new orleans and the gulf coast. now consider the fact that we won't completely withdraw until maybe (MAYBE) the end of the NEXT president's term. that is over 600 billion dollars at the current rate for that time period. and our military is spread thin, recruiting is down, and now iran is going crazy and seems to pose a credible risk. i'm scared for my kid.
Your spiritual gift isn't encouragement, is it?
Well, we may be teetering on the brink of implosion, but if that's the case, isn't it exciting that we'll be alive to watch it all unfold? It'll be like watching Rome burn under Nero.
And, btw, isn't it also crazy that when you say you're scared for your kid, you're not talking about the eventual, imagined child that you presume you will have; you're talking about the actual infant that will be born THIS VERY YEAR!!!!
yeah, all these ideas about fatherhood have become completely concrete now. and those images of poo-filled diapers are getting closer by the day. hopefully our kid's poo will smell like roses or something.
If you feed the kid roses, you might have a shot. It would be like salad, right?
hmmm. roses. i'll have to try that.
Post a Comment