President Bush's Troubles
I am going to go outside the strict confines of the subject matter of this blog to again discuss President Bush's stand on warrantless eavesdropping. (For the latest about where this controversy may go, see Frank Rich's article in this Sunday's New York Times.)
As a lawyer, it disturbs me that the President has decided to treat the rule of law so cavalierly. Our adherence to the rule of law is what makes our democracy so remarkable. The makers of the Constitution understood the importance of the rule of law. They put a system of checks and balances in the Constitution to make sure that the rule of law, rather than the rule of man, would prevail. They understood that no one person should have the power to make unconstrained decisions in a democratic government because it would lead to totalitarianism. With his position on warrantless eavesdropping, President Bush has decided to ignore the rule of law. We should all be concerned and outraged. (The "legal" reasons the Bush Administration has given for why the President's actions are legal ignore the principles of statutory construction and constitutional precedent.)
As the daughter of two World War II veterans and the granddaughter of two World War I veterans, I am angry that the President has chosen to treat their sacrifices for our country so cheaply. My parents and grandparents put their young lives on hold to defend a country they believed in. My father, who volunteered for military service, lost a leg in battle. He later suffered a debilitating illness due to his war injury, making the last 18 years of his life very difficult. One of my grandfathers, who also volunteered for military service, died at age fifty of a bleeding ulcer, probably due to the effects of having been exposed to mustard gas during World War I. They did not risk their lives for a government that treats its citizens like subjects in a dictatorship. Dictatorships secretly eavesdrop on their citizens without constraint, which is exactly what President Bush maintains his administration has a right to do despite law to the contrary.
President Bush has justified his actions by saying that his administration needs to secretly eavesdrop without warrants to protect us all from terrorists. Assuming this contention has any truth to it, Mr. Bush needs to find another way to protect us; one that does not violate the Constitution and laws. If that other way means that we as a people will be put at slightly greater risk, then so be it. I am willing to bear the greater risk to my safety to protect the freedoms upon which this country was founded. My parents and grandparents would expect no less from me.
As a lawyer, it disturbs me that the President has decided to treat the rule of law so cavalierly. Our adherence to the rule of law is what makes our democracy so remarkable. The makers of the Constitution understood the importance of the rule of law. They put a system of checks and balances in the Constitution to make sure that the rule of law, rather than the rule of man, would prevail. They understood that no one person should have the power to make unconstrained decisions in a democratic government because it would lead to totalitarianism. With his position on warrantless eavesdropping, President Bush has decided to ignore the rule of law. We should all be concerned and outraged. (The "legal" reasons the Bush Administration has given for why the President's actions are legal ignore the principles of statutory construction and constitutional precedent.)
As the daughter of two World War II veterans and the granddaughter of two World War I veterans, I am angry that the President has chosen to treat their sacrifices for our country so cheaply. My parents and grandparents put their young lives on hold to defend a country they believed in. My father, who volunteered for military service, lost a leg in battle. He later suffered a debilitating illness due to his war injury, making the last 18 years of his life very difficult. One of my grandfathers, who also volunteered for military service, died at age fifty of a bleeding ulcer, probably due to the effects of having been exposed to mustard gas during World War I. They did not risk their lives for a government that treats its citizens like subjects in a dictatorship. Dictatorships secretly eavesdrop on their citizens without constraint, which is exactly what President Bush maintains his administration has a right to do despite law to the contrary.
President Bush has justified his actions by saying that his administration needs to secretly eavesdrop without warrants to protect us all from terrorists. Assuming this contention has any truth to it, Mr. Bush needs to find another way to protect us; one that does not violate the Constitution and laws. If that other way means that we as a people will be put at slightly greater risk, then so be it. I am willing to bear the greater risk to my safety to protect the freedoms upon which this country was founded. My parents and grandparents would expect no less from me.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home