Last Thursday I whipped up a lengthy piece which I submitted as a "letter to the editor" to my local paper, the Warrensburg (MO)
Daily Star-Journal. I heard nothing from them. Today I opened the paper, and to my surprise, I found they had run my letter as an opinion editorial, giving me a byline. Not only that, they ran the piece without editing or cutting it (though they did leave out the italicized titles).
[links provided here were not in the op ed]
Warrensburg, Missouri
The Daily Star Journal
Thursday, January 12, 2006
page 5 [no link, this paper is still in the 19th century]
Rule of law?
By XXXXX
Warrensburg
The recent revelation that our government, with the direct approval of George W. Bush, is illegally spying on American citizens in violation of the prohibition of warrantless searches in the 4th Amendment of our Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) should give us all pause. Among the provisions of FISA is a 72 hour "emergency clause". Up to this point one FISA judge has resigned and the remainder of the court will be attempting to hold the administration accountable. It's not as if the FISA Court has been reluctant to grant surveillance warrants - there have been thousands over the past few years with only a hand full of rejections.
The administration's defense of their illegal activity appears to be that filling out the paperwork is too onerous. And we have ex cathedra assurances from Kansas Senator Pat Roberts and Missouri Senator Kit Bond that this is all somehow constitutional?
Our founders were perceptive as shown by a statement first published in 1759 and attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Rule of law is a recurring theme in civilization. In Bolt's 1960 play A Man for All Seasons Sir Thomas More states: "...when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
The courts here and abroad have a lot to say about the rule of law. In the Supreme Court case Ex parte Milligan (1866) Justice David Davis eloquently wrote: "...By the protection of the law human rights are secured; withdraw that protection, and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers, or the clamor of an excited people.
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence..."
In 1999 the Israeli Supreme Court ruled (which this administration's White House Office of Legal Counsel cited for a legal memo on another issue): "....This decision opens with a description of the difficult reality in which Israel finds herself security wise. We shall conclude this judgment by re-addressing that harsh reality. We are aware that this decision does not ease dealing with that reality. This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it, and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it. Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand. Preserving the Rule of Law and recognition of an individual's liberty constitutes an important component in its understanding of security. At the end of the day, they strengthen its spirit and its strength and allow it to overcome its difficulties...."
Billmon's June 15, 2004 commentary on the Israeli court ruling finds where this administration misses the mark: "....what I find most striking are not the legal issues involved, but rather the enormous contrast in intellectual intent between what the Israeli high court and the Bush Justice Department have been trying to do. The Israeli justices, for all their hypocrisy, were attempting to extend the rule of law into areas that have traditionally been regarded as the exclusive domain of the national security state. The Bush legal team is boldly and arrogantly trying to do the opposite.
"It's the difference between a legal system that has been trapped in a moral cesspool for almost 60 years, and desperately wants to get out, and a small clique of legal extremists who are determined to throw themselves, and their country, into the same stinking mire, regardless of the risks."
All the trees are down and an ill wind is blowing. Just not from the direction we think.
I should be hearing from my local right wingnut stalker any moment now.