Daily Kos

View Story | 62 comments

  •  But (none / 1)

    what if we were in power? Forgetting FISA for a second, is it impossible to believe that there would be a circumstance in which protecting innocent lives would entail breaking the law?

    Take a different case - should whistleblowers be prosecuted? They are often violating the law by disclosing secret information that exposes important wrong doing. We write laws to specifically codify what they can do and how we can protect them. So Cheney should (but, sadly, won't) go to jail for leaking classified information to make a (false) case for war. But Sibel Edmonds, for instance, should not.

    I'm not trying to defend the president here. Is that not clear? Because if it isn't, then I haven't written this diary very well.

    by nussbaumski on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:42:47 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  But what if we were in power? (none / 0)

      That is wishful thinking.  It doesn't matter who is in power.  Right and wrong are not dependent on who is acting.  They exist independently of the people involved, or they mean nothing.  

      Bush may believe he is right, that doesn't make it so.  And if he acts on that belief, that doesn't make his actions right, just dangerously wrong.

      by MN camera on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:48:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  do you really believe (none / 1)

        there is no instance in which the law has to be broken? what about doctors who 50 years ago performed illegal abortions, or civil rights activists engaging in civil disobedience?

        my point is only this - it's unrealistic to believe that the law is prepared for all contingencies - there will be cases when the law has to be broken, but when it does, it is essential that there is a process in place to hold the person responsible.

        in the fisa case, the law breaking was unnecessary, therefore if a full account was taken then people would get in trouble for their actions. however, i can imagine other instances in which the law breaking was necessary and in those cases there should still be a process that brings the facts of the decision to light and allows impartial judgments to be made.

        what's so troubling about the nsa case is not just that the law was broken, but that all accountability is being avoided. this is what we should be yelling and screaming about.

        by nussbaumski on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 01:00:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  huh? (4.00 / 2)

          Do you really believe there is no instance in which the law has to be broken? What about doctors who 50 years ago performed illegal abortions, or civil rights activists engaging in civil disobedience?

          What, exactly, does any of that have to do with what I was saying?

          And when it comes to civil disobedience, I think those who are willing to engage in it ought to do so with eyes wide open, prepared for the likely consequences.  That is a concept that seems to evade many people these days, on both the left and the right.

          by MN camera on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 01:19:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

View Story | 62 comments