Re-taking Patriotism
I'm into the homestretch in my reading of "How Would a Patriot Act," Glenn Greenwald's blogosphere-catapulted best-selling book, with the racy subtitle "Defending American Values from a President Run Amok." I urge you to find a way soon to read this excellent, exceptionally well-written short book. I make a lot of use of library resources these days, but pointedly bought this one to support author and concept, to possess it, and to aid in sales figures. I believe orders with your local bookstore will pay dividends and have karmic benefits. Do it!
Greenwald argues that the usurpation of formerly check-and-balanced shared gubernatorial power by the bush (former) juggernaut transcends political boundaries. And of course it does, a number of high-profile conservatives having spoken out in the last six months in particular against the bush power grabs. And I agree, there have been encouraging signs that some with strong "conservative" principles are immune to the bush kool-aid (or afraid of what they have spawned, in some cases). Sadly, though, like any successful politician, he has also collected a significant number of sycophants and others desperately hanging onto coatsleeves (and the odd teepee stuck to his shoe) and in total denial. That of course is a key reason his poll ratings are only very close to the worst ever by a sitting executive. I want to think that having a book like this one front-and-center may slightly erode that recalcitrant core, at least the few with reading skills.
The obvious law-breaking involved in the FISA-violating NSA eavesdropping on US citizens is perhaps the primary locus of Greenwald's book. But he does a great job of filling in the context to remind us this is just one of the more obvious examples in a pattern of abuse.
A few excerpts from "How Would a Patriot Act":
[clip]
What is at risk from the Bush administration's radical theories of power are not new or exotic liberties, but rather the most fundamental rights. The right the Bush administration denied to U.S. citizens Padilla and Hamdi - that is, the right not to be imprisoned without due process - is a right that was not just recognized at the founding of the country, but was one of the first liberties established in thirteenth-century England, when British subjects rejected the notion that the king had absolute, unlimited powers and forced King John to accept the Magna Carta. That thirteenth-century liberty is what has been abrogated by this administration.
[clip]
And while it is the case that some of the liberties protected by the U.S. Constitution were vigorously debated and subject to all sorts of compromises among the founders, the right not to be imprisoned by the federal government without due process was not one of those controversies.
[clip]
America has emerged as the world's strongest country not despite but because of the limitations on government power that our Constitution imposes. We are a strong nation precisely because we have adhered to our founding principles of liberty and a restrained government, not because we have departed from them in times of danger or due to fear.
[clip]
That terrorism is a real and serious threat cannot be denied. But America has never been a nation characterized by fear. Yet, for the last five years, we have had a government that has worked overtime to keep fear levels high because doing so served its interests. More than four years after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration continues to keep up the relentless drumbeat of fear.
[clip]
We must now see that fear is a by-product of weakness and cowardice. A strong nation does not give up its freedoms or sacrifice its national character in the face of manufactured fear and panic. But that is what George Bush has spent the last four years urging the country to do, and it is what he is counting on - that this NSA lawbreaking scandal will soon join the litany of other scandals that have inconsequentially receded in the public consciousness.
[clip]
Under the Bush administration , we have traveled as a nation from the towering heights defined by the courage and impassioned stance of Patrick Henry and other American founders to a fearful and craven basement where we are ready to give up our liberties and grant the government power without limits because we are afraid.
[clip]
Greenwald argues that the usurpation of formerly check-and-balanced shared gubernatorial power by the bush (former) juggernaut transcends political boundaries. And of course it does, a number of high-profile conservatives having spoken out in the last six months in particular against the bush power grabs. And I agree, there have been encouraging signs that some with strong "conservative" principles are immune to the bush kool-aid (or afraid of what they have spawned, in some cases). Sadly, though, like any successful politician, he has also collected a significant number of sycophants and others desperately hanging onto coatsleeves (and the odd teepee stuck to his shoe) and in total denial. That of course is a key reason his poll ratings are only very close to the worst ever by a sitting executive. I want to think that having a book like this one front-and-center may slightly erode that recalcitrant core, at least the few with reading skills.
The obvious law-breaking involved in the FISA-violating NSA eavesdropping on US citizens is perhaps the primary locus of Greenwald's book. But he does a great job of filling in the context to remind us this is just one of the more obvious examples in a pattern of abuse.
A few excerpts from "How Would a Patriot Act":
[clip]
What is at risk from the Bush administration's radical theories of power are not new or exotic liberties, but rather the most fundamental rights. The right the Bush administration denied to U.S. citizens Padilla and Hamdi - that is, the right not to be imprisoned without due process - is a right that was not just recognized at the founding of the country, but was one of the first liberties established in thirteenth-century England, when British subjects rejected the notion that the king had absolute, unlimited powers and forced King John to accept the Magna Carta. That thirteenth-century liberty is what has been abrogated by this administration.
[clip]
And while it is the case that some of the liberties protected by the U.S. Constitution were vigorously debated and subject to all sorts of compromises among the founders, the right not to be imprisoned by the federal government without due process was not one of those controversies.
[clip]
America has emerged as the world's strongest country not despite but because of the limitations on government power that our Constitution imposes. We are a strong nation precisely because we have adhered to our founding principles of liberty and a restrained government, not because we have departed from them in times of danger or due to fear.
[clip]
That terrorism is a real and serious threat cannot be denied. But America has never been a nation characterized by fear. Yet, for the last five years, we have had a government that has worked overtime to keep fear levels high because doing so served its interests. More than four years after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration continues to keep up the relentless drumbeat of fear.
[clip]
We must now see that fear is a by-product of weakness and cowardice. A strong nation does not give up its freedoms or sacrifice its national character in the face of manufactured fear and panic. But that is what George Bush has spent the last four years urging the country to do, and it is what he is counting on - that this NSA lawbreaking scandal will soon join the litany of other scandals that have inconsequentially receded in the public consciousness.
[clip]
Under the Bush administration , we have traveled as a nation from the towering heights defined by the courage and impassioned stance of Patrick Henry and other American founders to a fearful and craven basement where we are ready to give up our liberties and grant the government power without limits because we are afraid.
[clip]
posted by Sir Gumbo at 10:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home