[After the Constitutional Convention] A lady asked Dr. Franklin:
"Well Doctor what have we got - a republic or a monarchy?"
"A republic", replied the Doctor, "if you can keep it."
Sen. Russell Feingold today introduced a resolution to censure our president for violating the law. The violated law in question, as we all know, is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Based on my study of the history of the rise of Nazi Germany, I fear that we are in danger of losing our Republic - Feingold's move is an urgent first step if we are to keep it.
There is really no doubt among the bulk of Democrats or Republicans that the President violated FISA; the question is
what to do about it. The Republican Congress, trying to keep their leader from further trouble, is trying to change the law to make the President's actions legal, while
pretending to exert Congressional oversight over the program. The Democrats, by and large, are boldly doing nothing,
cravenly hoping that Republicans will continue to melt
themselves down in the polls.
FISA is not some obscure law that we can simply ignore, like the regulations which control the labeling of canned ham. Flagrant violation of FISA is a full frontal attack on the Constitution, and by extension, a full frontal attack on our country.
The fourth amendment to The Constitution states, very simply:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
In short: in order to spy on a person, you need a warrant, and the warrant has to be specific. FISA is a straightforward set of procedures for our Government to follow in order to spy on Americans who are suspected of plotting with foreign governments.
The Administration has argued that their extrajudicial spying is a necessary anti-terror measure. This argument apparently has had some popular success but it is extremely improbable: as far as anyone can tell, warrantless spying changes nothing other than eliminating judicial overview to ensure the lawful behavior of the President's spying apparatus. It's unlikely that there could more speed or secrecy than already existed in the FISA program prior to Bush's executive order for warrantless spying - the FISA court is even located inside of the NSA's headquarters in order to speed the process. In short, the Bush administration has rejected our Constitution, with only a few absurd legal-argument fig leaves to cover their bald-faced coup d'etat.
Let's take a step back and see what history tells us about such moves.
Donald Rumsfeld is as poor a historian as he is a planner and executer of wars. Speaking recently of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Rumsfeld sneered "He's a person who was elected legally -- just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally" As is typical, Rumsfeld was either ignorant or lying - Hitler was never elected to power; he was appointed as a placeholder, and then proceeded to steal power. But his was no ordinary seizure of power, and there is something important and relevant to Americans in Hitler's path to absolute power.
Hitler did not storm the Reichstag with his band of gun-toting thugs, taking the government in a hail of bullets. Nor was there ever a triumphant ascension to power for Hitler via a majority of the German people. Hitler's Nazi Party always trailed behind in elections, and never had close to enough votes to take control. In fact, the Nazi Party's popularity was declining when Hitler became Chancellor.
Hitler was appointed to Germany's chancellorship; perversely, Hitler was appointed to head Germany precisely because his backing was weak: stronger parties, mistrustful of each other, made a series of back-room deals to appoint Hitler because they believed that he was so weak that he could be toppled whenever they wanted him out.
Hitler's powers as Chancellor were limited by Germany's Constitution. But Hitler had a big surprise in his pocket: Article 48 of the German Constitution granted the Reich President the ability to suspend Constitutional protections and checks and balances in the event of a national emergency. Hitler had a national emergency declared, then used an interpretation of Article 48 to rule by decree, without check or balance of the legislature. Eventually, Article 48 was used as the basis of decrees to eliminate citizen privacy, abolish competing political parties, and to permit Hitler to circumvent the legislature at will.
Hitler was not the first Chancellor to use Article 48; his predecessors had invoked it a handful of times in the three years prior to Hitler's ascension to the chancellery, for far less nefarious purposes. It was this precedent that allowed Hitler to use the provision with a minimum of objection.
Now we in the US are faced by our own Article 48 - the Bush Administration's tortured interpretation of the second amendment of the Constitution and Congress's 9/11 resolution. The Bush administration claims that these are the bases for its ability to do anything, to anybody, at any time, if it "believes" that its actions are necessary to protect our country. Neither Congress nor the Courts may interfere with the President's authority, goes the Administration's theory. (However, Attorney General Gonzales has told the Senate that "the president... [would] be happy to listen to your ideas.")
At first glance, this seems awful. At second glance, it's even worse. Just how bad this really is was brought home to me during a recent online discussion I had with a right- winger who buys into the Administration's theory. This fellow has read more than most, and is respected by the other right-wingers on this particular site. We were having a discussion regarding the Administration's evasion of FISA. In order to highlight the absurdity of the President's arguments, I posed the following question:
"Suppose the President wakes up one day and decides that in order to protect the US, we must kill every Mormon in the country. Could he do this? Would there be any legal way to stop him?"
His answer was that the President does indeed have this right (and obligation), and that there are no steps that either the Congress or the Judiciary could take to stop him - other than the Congress withholding funding so that the President would eventually run out of cash for his death camps. His fellow Righties jumped in with their agreement - not a single one took exception. In fact, other than me, not a single person, Left or Right, responded negatively to the proposition that the President would be legally protected in committing genocide if he alone decides it's necessary to protect us.
My blood went cold at this; I'd imagine that anyone who has visited the remains of Nazi concentration camps would have the same response.
Most Americans harbor the belief that "it couldn't happen here". We Americans are different. We could never devolve into the orgy of slaughter that was Nazi Germany.
But are we really so different?
What most people don't realize about Germany is that, just prior to the Nazi power grab, it was a very liberal and open society - perhaps the most liberal and open in the world. Since the feature of Nazi Germany that most people think of is the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews, it might be fitting to look at German-Jewish relations in pre-Hitler Germany as an example.
With very few exceptions, German Jews did not live in ghettos, wearing overcoats and hats, bowing in prayer morning, noon and night. Rather, Jews were exquisitely integrated into society, just as they are today in the US. Jews held top jobs in government, business, and the military. They owned businesses, and mingled as easily with non-Jews as with other Jews. A Jewish friend of our family was born in Cologne prior to the Nazi takeover. Her father, a decorated veteran of the First World War, owned a butcher shop known for its pork sausages. Her friends were mostly non-Jewish - in fact, there was no particular awareness of religion. As many as 50% of Jews married non-Jews, an intermarriage rate comparable to what we see in the US today. Germany was more open to accepting Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe than were England, France, and most other European countries.
In short, in pre-Hitler Germany, being a Jew was secondary to being a German - in the eyes of Jews and non-Jews alike.
Then along came Article 48 in the hands of a madman, and soon being a Jew meant extrajudicial imprisonment, enslavement, torture, and death.
It is important to recognize that our Constitution has no provision whatsoever for its wholesale suspension during turbulent times (i.e., martial law). I doubt if our founders could have imagined the brutal efficiency of mass murder that the Germans achieved with then-modern technology. But, our founders sure did know the incredible depravity that is unleashed when power is unchecked. Their choice to favor deliberation over expedience, even in the most difficult times, was a conscious choice, and perhaps their greatest gift to our country: based on my reading of history, this choice of theirs is the crucial thing that has protected us in the past.
With regard to Nazi Germany: there, but for the grace of the Founding Fathers, go us.
By suspending our Constitution via its tortured interpretation of the law, the Bush Administration has fundamentally opened a road to hell. For the first time in my life, I am truly frightened of our government - we all should be. I hope that you will join me in doing whatever we can to restore the Constitution, and to ensure that steps are taken so that future presidential administrations, no matter how depraved and power-mad, will be prevented from attempting this unrestrained power grab again.
Our Congress must act strongly and decisively. We must do what we can to preserve our Constitution and our freedoms, which are the very essence of our country, from those who would be our absolute masters - and who will be our absolute masters, if we do not fight now. Let us join together to support Senators Feingold and Conyers, and the handful of other Democrats who've the will to fight for the soul of our country.