What if Bush is right?

There does not seem to be any remotely plausible justification for the government to be circumventing the FISA court to spy on people without a warrant. I know this and you know this, and as georgia10 reports 77% of respondents in a poll of members of the American Bar Association know it too.

There are various theories as to why the administration felt compelled to break the law. Many people suspect that the government is doing data mining which the courts wouldn't allow, and congress wouldn't approve. There are also plausible claims that Cheney and his cabal wanted to go around FISA to show who's boss and extend executive power by marginalizing the legislative and judicial branches of government. I want to consider a much less plausible explanation: they really needed to do what they did.

I think this is a question that should be carefully considered for two reasons. First, by giving the "president" the benefit of the doubt, the vulnerabilities of his case for illegal spying is made as tight as possible. And second, and I think more important, we pause and consider what we would want things to look like in a situation where there was a competent president acting in good faith that really did face an enemy whose threat required recourse to "extra-judicial" means.

We all know that to a certain extent, sadly a pretty large one, the war on terror is an Orwellian smokescreen. Still, it shouldn't be hard to imagine a situation in which the law handcuffed a responsible and well meaning president and the security of the country - in an important, if not an existential sense - depended on his (or her) breaking the law for purposes of national security. What should be permissible, if not strictly legal, under those circumstances?

The current President has said, "I know this war is controversial, yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences."

I think there is something profoundly right about that statement. But it also highlights one of the most shameful parts of this administration, which is it's complete lack of accountability. It's not that I have no problem with the President breaking the law to do "important" things. I do. But I also recognize that there are some circumstances in which doing everything "by the book" would be disastrous. But what is essential, if you're going to over reach is that you do it no more than is absolutely necessary and then you come clean with exactly what you've done and let someone from the outside be the judge of your actions. This administration pays lip service, as in the quote above to accountability, but fights tooth and nail against it.

This is not a partisan issue. In any matter of this sort it is essential that the opposition not act opportunistically, and that the majority not toe the party line - I know that seems like an unrealistic prescription in this day and age, but that's what patriotism requires, it seems to me.

I believe that the "president" is profoundly wrong in the way he defines and prosecutes the "war on terror" but I think we have to be at least open to the possibility that he's right - and if he were right, that he could do what needs to be done. It's very hard for me to say that, because the means he has used in his approach contradict the logic that I'm using. But my point ultimately is this - I think it's only realistic to accept that the President should be able to use extra-judicial power judiciously. But when he does so, rarely, he should make himself completely accountable for his decisions. If it requires some degree of secrecy, to keep information out of the public sphere, then so be it - but there has to be a formal process to review and redress the President's decisions.

In the end, I think our argument needs to be not about what the President has done - we can obviously argue that the data mining program is illegal and ineffective. Our basic point should be that the President needs to be held accountable. The fact that this administration is trying so hard to avoid accountability is where our outrage should be directed. Accountability is not something Americans disagree about (usually) and that, I believe should be the crux of our attack. Coming at it based on the facts of the case is nice, but everyone knows that facts are partisan, and therefore easily dismissed.

•  Rip Jar

  "To live outside the law you must be honest - I know you always said that you agree."  - Bob Dylan

  Bonus points for identifying who is being channeled for poll responses 3 and 4.

  by nussbaumski on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:10:36 PM PDT

  •  What if pigs actually can fly?

    The point is that Bush has cried Wolf so many times at least half of this nation is simply not prepared to believe him on anything.  They want either the judiciary or congress to oversee his mammoth spying program and report back.  His word, and the word of his stooges, has no weight.  That's what you get for being a sneaky liar.  

    by worldbeggedyoutovoteKerry on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:55:07 PM PDT

    •  so why

      are we letting Gonzalez get away with his bs answers to congress? This is what makes me so angry. If they really think they were justified in their decisions, why not have the courage to explain why and let us decide?

      by nussbaumski on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 01:03:36 PM PDT

      •  Senators are basically powerless

        to do anything with the stonewall testamony, especially since each answer is of the "I could tell you but then I would have to kill you" kind.

        As for the not telling us, they couldn't care less what the public wants.  All they are interested in is undermining the checks and balances.  The courts will decide whether they have overstepped their authority.  They know that the public (especially the part that follows them blindly) is very stupid, and they know that it takes forever to get these procedures through the court system.  

        Basically, they have everything to gain by stonewalling, and very little to loose.  After all, we still don't know who was in on the secret energy meetings that Cheney held back in 2001.  Time is on their side not ours.

        by worldbeggedyoutovoteKerry on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 01:22:46 PM PDT

      •  Hell hath no fury...

        
        like a woman scorned

        Screwing over lady justice has some serious consequences.  If the government can't prove that the evidence gathered to confict was not "poisoned fruit", these bastards walk will probably walk thanks to Bush.

        by worldbeggedyoutovoteKerry on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 01:55:03 PM PDT

        •  Another link provided by Georgia10

          2 months to come clean

          by worldbeggedyoutovoteKerry on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 02:20:19 PM PDT

      •  Why are they letting him get away with it?

        Because the Democrats being in the minority do not have supeona power. What part of that do you not understand?

        by eaglecries on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 06:02:25 PM PDT

  •  Scotty and Gonzales

    respectively?

    by sidnora on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 02:25:07 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for the 4! <n/t>

      by sidnora on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 02:55:24 PM PDT

  •  well this says it all

    
    "outside the law you must be honest"

    When someone explains to me how one can break the law and be honest, I might give you the time of day, until then I stick with the fact that no one, not even the President is above the law.

    You do not start giving up rights in order to defend them.

    by eaglecries on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 06:00:16 PM PDT

•  they didn't need to do what they did

  they could wiretap for 72 hours before getting a wiretap.

  Meaning they could get a wiretap immediately and worry about getting a warrent a day and a half later.  There is nothing about the current law that would slow them down.

  and if the FISA court would have denied their request then, well, considering how few requests have been denied by the court over the year, then there would be a very good reason for it.  Fear of having a warrent being denied isn't a valid reason to have this program.

  There is absolutely no reason to have it. Zero. None.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:17:33 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    with the specifics of this case - I'm talking about (as AG Gonzales prefers not to) about a hypothetical situation in which the president did have to authorize a violation of the law - what happens then. Should he not do it, should he try to hide it, or should he be held accountable. The law is obviously not perfect and never will be, I'm just interested in people's thoughts about that scenario - forgetting for a second that I disagree with what's been done in this instance, which I think I made pretty clear, no?

    by nussbaumski on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:37:53 PM PDT

    •  if the president feels that way

      afterwards all the facts should be presented to the congress and the american people and they can decide whether the action was absolutely necessary or not.

      obviously that isn't happening in this case

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:41:31 PM PDT

      •  yup

        and that's exactly what I think our central push should be about. the gonzalez hearings, in which he essentially ducked every question should be assailed and loudly. Pat Leahy's retort to Gonzalez apologizing sarcastically that he forgot that Gonzalez couldn't answer any relevant questions should not just be on the daily show.

        If I had one word I could use to campaign on this november it would be accountability.

        by nussbaumski on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:53:11 PM PDT

•  Well

  First of all, Bush isn't right, not about this case. He could have perfectly used FISA, which already gives him extensive power as it is to wiretap, even without a warrant for 72 hours before having to apply for one with FISA. The court rarely rejects warrants and unless he conducted wiretaps which he knew wouldn't muster enough cause to get one, well then that simply shows that he was abusing the system by spying on political enemies or some other similar reason which FISA would have rightly not allowed. There is NO reason why he should be allowed to wiretap without warrant, there is NO emergency imaginable, because FISA already allows this for up to 72 hours! And if you have enough cause in this emergency then FISA will approve it anyway! There is simply no excuse.

  Secondly, how do you suppose presidents be held accountable shoudl they decide to break the law? IF a president makes an egregious crime then he ought to be impeached. It's sort of a ridiculous notion that the president be allowed to sometimes break the law when he deems necessary, yet face the concequences....well that's what happens to everyone when they break the law, you face concequences....so what exactly would you advocate those concequences be? I think the constituation already tells us what the concequences are for a president that blatanlty breaks the law.

  by michael1104 on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:21:11 PM PDT

•  Believing doesn't make it so.

  The current President has said, "I know this war is controversial, yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences."

  I think there is something profoundly right about that statement.

  (...)

  I believe that the "president" is profoundly wrong in the way he defines and prosecutes the "war on terror" but I think we have to be at least open to the possibility that he's right - and if he were right, that he could do what needs to be done.

  Even if we choose to ascribe the benign motivation of "doing what he believes in" to the president, what he is doing as a result is nothing more than engaging in wishful thinking.  

  There is a great difference to be found in the distinction between what we believe to be true and what we know as demonstrably true.

  He is not right, except in the sense that a stopped clock is right twice daily, which is to say, accidentally, and rarely in matters of consequence.

  by MN camera on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:24:38 PM PDT

  •  But

    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

    •  But what if we were in power?

      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

      •  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?

        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

        •  huh?

          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

•  extra-legal activities

  will always occur. And perhaps should in some cases.
  The fact that this admin. has refused to even revisit the FISA law, discuss it honestly with Congress, has stonewalled all investigations (of any sort), and has buried records and documents from the public tells me all I need to know abou this Admins motives. Even if they stop listening today, they have heard enough to destroy lives, influence law, and control outcomes in their favor.

  by parryander on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:24:51 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    I wish I could've been that clear. The point here, in addition to the indefensibility of the administrations actions, is their unwillingness to be accountable. They avoid the courts, the congress, and the media. On the one hand it's unsurprising because of what we'd find out if they were honest - but at the same time, it's this avoidance of accountability that should be indefensible to EVERYONE, whereas the case for the need for the spying itself, while obvious to us, is a much more contested question.

    Who could possibly argue that the administration should be completely unaccountable? Other than Bush... And Cheney... And Gonzalez... Oh well.

    by nussbaumski on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:46:05 PM PDT

  •  It's just one more assault

    on strengthening the executive office at the expense of the other two branches of government.  We know about it because of a whistleblower, but how many other illegal power grab gambits are yet to be uncovered?

    As usual, the MSM is doing a shitty job of debating this issue, so I'm not surprised that many people are siding with the president.  By the time they notice the coup it will probably be too late.

    by worldbeggedyoutovoteKerry on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 01:04:41 PM PDT

•  it would be a lot easier...

  ...to argue Bush is right about something if he were ever right about ANYTHING.

  This is a man who doens't believe he has to live in reality.  The sad thing is if he jumped off a bridge, thousands of people would follow him just because he did it.

  by DawnG on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:27:58 PM PDT

  •  And....

    I really wish he would!!

    by reflectionsv37 on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:33:03 PM PDT

    •  Where is rapture when you really need it?

      Take them already, their brains are fried!  Done, I tell you... done, done, done!!

      by worldbeggedyoutovoteKerry on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 01:08:05 PM PDT

•  He's not. Ever. On anything.

  by MrSandman on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:32:04 PM PDT

•  Now that is just fucked up

  Its an "ends justifies the means" argument.

  IF what GWB was either right or nec. then he would not have had to commit a CRIME in order to do it.

  He would also not have had to refuse both judicial or Congressional oversight.

  By refusing to even put forth for review (by FISA or Congress) his "plan" to spy on American Citizens, he has in effect admitted that what he was doing was outside the law.

  Flawed argument, don't buy it.

  by wild salmon on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:32:20 PM PDT

•  Are you playing devil's advocate?

  Or JUST FULL OF SHIT???

  by MuldraughTim on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:32:24 PM PDT

  •  Jeeesh. A 4 for the question alone.

    Like we all sit around here at this site wondering if bush is right. . .

    by MrSandman on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:42:06 PM PDT

  •  Devil's advocate, clearly

    I'm doing my best not to take personal offense at your comment/rating, because I think it reflects more on you than on me. Did you take the time to read the diary, or just knee jerk to the title and skim it? And if you really did read it, what's your point - I found your comment pretty useless in expressing anything.

    My point, in a nutshell was not that the president is right, but that if he were, or if any president were, ever justified in breaking the law, how would we deal with it in such a way as to get it right most of the time - punish him if he's breaking the law, but allow him (a hypothetical president that is) to do what's necessary.

    For instance, a whistleblower who breaks the law in revealing wrongdoing by leaking classfied documents is someone who is breaking the law in a way that is potentially justifiable. That's why we try to write whistle blower legislation, because we occasionally want people to break laws in extraordinary circumstances.

    The important part is, however, that there must be accountability. You can't just unilaterally decide that your decisions are justified. This is precisely what the administation has been doing, and it is indefensible. I think this should be the target of our outrage, because it is true for both sides, regardless of the actually details of the matter in question.

    And on a personal note, please don't make comments and ratings like that anymore, it's bad citizenship. This is a community for the free exchange of ideas, and ratings abuse does it harm.

    by nussbaumski on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 01:44:43 PM PDT

    •  well, i happen to notice that you rated that

      poster with a 1. and then you write don't do that. i  have to say i am wondering why. it was an explicit question but then you answered. but the 1? that is not a troll question. i frankly don't see the diary. if this were a one time situation, maybe! but geez, all bush does is lie and break the law.

      by stodghie on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 04:52:49 PM PDT

    •  Put your dreams away

      Your diary is about what we should expect from a normal President who has most Americans at heart. The diary has absolutely no bearing on the current President or the present situation. Talking about normal Presidencies at a time like this is simply giving Bush credit where it IS NOT due. We are in the middle of our own 1930's Germany Nazi crisis and you're talking about what we should allow HINDENBURG or what we should expect from the Weimar government. It is time to talk NOW!

      by MuldraughTim on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 12:10:32 AM PDT

•  Why was extra-judicial power needed?

  What is missing is WHY the administration asserts that FISA fails to provide them with the authority they need to investigate terrorism suspects.  In other words, what emergency was so compelling that it required the administration to defy the law?

  Consider that (1) the FISA court operates in secret;  (2) FISA warrants issue merely upon showing a showing of possible connection to terrorism, not upon probable cause;  (3) FISA warrants can be obtained retroactively;  (4) the FISA court has rejected only five out of 18,000 warrrant requests.

  by acquittal on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:32:35 PM PDT

•  give the president the benefit of the doubt?

  what has this president done that could possibly merit such a benefit?

  by rasbobbo on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:46:28 PM PDT

•  Bypassing any law...

  places the President or any person as judge, jury and executioner.  A vigilanty of sorts, who argues that what they did was for the betterment of all.  

  There is ample reason why our country has looked down upon self justice and should look down upon President Bush and his self justice.

  Bush has opened the door to allow prosecutions be tainted against terrorist who may rightly deserve to convicted.  But actions such as his cast the "fruit of the poisoned tree" upon all actions that follow.  

  "Convictions" afterwards cast a dark cloud, one which allows speculation, and rumours and does more harm to justice than help.

  If laws are allowed to be bent to our needs, the needs become greater, more urgent and expand upon the last, until the system falls unto itself.

  btw, long time reader, 1st time poster.  Love this site.

  by take it back on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:46:51 PM PDT

•  I find this interesting

   Bud Cramer senior Democrat on the intelligence committee's oversight subcommittee said this about the domestic eavesdropping program "It's a different program than I was beginning to let myself believe. This may be a valuable program. My direction of thinking was changed tremendously."
   I am curious what information he was shown to have changed his thinking.
  http://www.canada.com/...
  

  by AbsurdEyes on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:46:53 PM PDT

  •  the next line is interesting too

    Still, Cramer said, some members remain angry and frustrated, and he didn't know why the White House waited so long to inform Congress of its actions.

    I wasn't aware the White House informed Congress, aside from a select few members. Wasn't this leaked in the NYT?

    by Tirge Caps on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:54:14 PM PDT

  •  I am curious what information he was shown to have

    Oh, maybe a new funding proposition for his district.... not to be too cynical or anything.

    by worldbeggedyoutovoteKerry on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 01:10:39 PM PDT

•  Mmmmm.

  I was pondering a similar question this morning. You see, I threw my damn back out in the middle of the week and I've been wondering if there were such a thing as the pill fairy.

  Still no sign.

  by Tirge Caps on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:49:49 PM PDT

  •  Pill fairy exists...

    she's being held under lock and key deep in a dungeons somewhere in New Jersey.

    by worldbeggedyoutovoteKerry on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 01:13:32 PM PDT

•  Huge flaw

  And second, and I think more important, we pause and consider what we would want things to look like in a situation where there was a competent president acting in good faith that really did face an enemy whose threat required recourse to "extra-judicial" means.

  We should behave nicely to model good behavior for them, so that they behave nicely when WE have a president in the White House?

  Were you asleep during the 1990's?

  Unilaterally playing Mr. Nice Guy with these folks is a dangersous and foolhardy exercise.

  by mrhelper on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:50:22 PM PDT

•  no need to break the law

  Current laws allow the president to lawfully order wiretaps on people of great interest to all the national security agencies immediately and get the permission from Congress to continue with the wiretaps within 3 days.

  This isn't even a case of accountability or necessity. This is just another case of Bush saying: "I want it, gimme!" and doing as he pleases.

  by analyst on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 12:50:23 PM PDT

•  Another huge flaw

  "I know this war is controversial, yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences."

  Being president requires what's best for the nation.

  He might think it's right for him to go after the guy who tried to kill his dad, to make himself and his buddies rich, to decimate this country's economy and environment, to spy on us, to start wars so he can look presidential, to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus and other quaint constitutional notions, and to export the wildly successful systematic theft of elections to Iraq, but none of those things make this country better.

  by DrReason on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 01:03:30 PM PDT

•  They key issue

  really is that people do not trust Bush. The Office of the President is so very much about the personal qualities of the incumbent that issues of constitutionality are very contextual. I do expect the President to take action to protect the country. FDR really leaned way over the line on neutrality to help England against the Nazis. He hid important issues from Congress and pretty much violated the Neutrality Act. Anyone going to call FDR a crook? I didn't think so.

  The reason I am most concerned about the FISA issue is that I believe the Bush administration to be profoundly untrustworthy. I think it is reasonable to suspect that avoiding the FISC was related to whom they were spying on, and that is scary in a super-Nixon kind of way. That, in my view, is the basic issue. To reverse the question Bush is asking us: if you weren't spying on domestic opponents then you won't mind if we take a look at your NSA program, will you?

  by Batfish on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 01:05:41 PM PDT

  •  the thing is

    I really wouldn't be ok with this if Clinton were doing it. Or Carter. Or Gore, or Kerry.

    Put a different way, even if I trusted the President, I would still want oversight. I would still want accountability. Even if it meant that it would have a political cost. That's because I don't want the President breaking the law unless it really really matters AND he think he can justify it to an "impartial" audience.

    I don't like this situation where, if the roles were reversed LGF would be saying what we are, and we would be making excuses, or ignoring the situation. If the President breaks the law because he thinks it's necessary then fine, I'm not so naive as to believe that never happens - but be accountable for you decision.

    by nussbaumski on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 01:31:34 PM PDT

    •  Well, in this specific circumstance

      nobody but Bush would do something so boneheaded. But I agree; you are not supposed to be OK with it. Breaking the law is wrong.

      But sometimes breaking the law is necessary to avert a greater evil. If so, then one should also have the moral courage to accept the attendant penalties. I am reminded of the line from Billy Budd just before being hanged. He says: I've done my duty, Captain. Now you do yours. Expecting such moral rectitude from Bush would be, however, proposterous.

      by Batfish on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 01:53:18 PM PDT

•  ok

  First of all, I don't think there's anything productive about some of the responses here.

  I do think that your query is productive, though.

  The short answer is that the President MUST be bound by the law no matter what. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

  The long answer ultimately comes to the same conclusion, but addresses the very real proposition that there WILL be situations where breaking the law is the only way to save lives.

  Living in a free country means that everyone, INCLUDING CRIMINALS, has the same rights and freedoms. By virtue of being free, we place ourselves at risk of being victim to those criminals. But that is the essential price that we pay for our freedom.

  Terrorists are no different. By being free and submitting to the rule of law, we put ourselves at risk of being victim to terrorist attacks. Because we are committed to freedom, our society requires barriers to tyranny that can indeed make it difficult to track down terrorists and prevent them from attacking.

  This is unfortunate, but it is the price we pay for our freedom. If we want to remain free, then we must accept that this risk is omnipresent. It can be minimized by more efficient laws and procedures, but it cannot be eliminated.

  As long as we are free, we remain at risk.

  The only way to completely eliminate the risk of terrorism is to subjugate ourselves to a dictator who is above the laws and procedures which currently allow terrorists to slip through the cracks.

  And THAT, my friends, is not something that Americans can be willing to do. We cannot allow our president to have absolute power - it is simply incompatable with freedom.

  Therefore, we must restrict his behaviour with laws that might sometimes make it more difficult to detect and prevent terrorist attacks.

  Because we are unwilling to give up our freedom, we must be unwilling to allow the President to break the law.

  by Richard Carlucci on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 01:28:27 PM PDT

  •  Very good points

    I think you make a very strong case, and even though I think it is the right stance 99.9% of the time, I personally think it may be too absolute. As a policy, I think I would subscribe to exactly what you're saying.

    But, taking a devil's advocate type position - and not in terms of the current administration's position - let's say there was a ticking bomb type situation, or any number of other hypotheticals, what happens then? It's an interesting aspect of a "war" against an enemy that doesn't play by your rules and therefore can use your own rules against you. Again, 99.9% of the time you're right, and while it's hard to play by the rules I absolutely agree that you have to. But in these extraordinary circumstances - do you think any exist? I think they do, conceivably, and therefore we should have a mechanism or process in place to arbitrate what the consequences should be for the person breaking the law. Usually it's a court, but I imagine for the President it's a little more complicated.

    Anyway, just trying to make sense of what, as the person in the comment below pointed out, is a muddled argument. Cheers.

    by nussbaumski on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 02:52:37 PM PDT

    •  in this case

      Bush didn't go to congress until it became clear that the details would leak out to the press.

      Had he started and then went to congress immediately (say, to those on the intelligence committees) there wouldn't have been so much fallout.

      And I am sorry:  I heard what Uncle Dick said, and if you can't trust 70 memebers of congress (those on the intelligence committees in both chambers), then we are in big trouble.

      by onanyes on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 03:03:26 PM PDT

      •  exactly

        When Bush did go to congress he only told a couple of people, and they weren't even allowed to talk about it. There was no accountability - it was avoided at all costs. That's what I think we should be making a big fuss about - he's a president not a king, which is why Feingold's pre-1776 mindset comment is so spot on.

        by nussbaumski on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 03:07:13 PM PDT

        •  why you catch flack

          is because your position is slightly nuanced, and many just skim the diaries.  I've been guilty of this as well. ;-)

          But I think your diary is a good one.

          by onanyes on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 04:18:34 PM PDT

•  Your argument is muddled

  
  and I have some difficulty understanding it.  But let me give you two points to consider.

  1.  If a President has to act extra-judicially, he has to act with the greatest possible integrity (i.e. violating laws in the narrowest possible way), achieve the objective, and remedy all injustices resulting from the actions involved to the largest degree possible.  Humility and accountability and remedial action are indispensible aspects of integrity.

  2.  Paranoia is not a justification for initiating abuses, losing (or not attaining) measure of the situation, or abrogating our social contract(s).  Paranoia is dysfunction of the heart and failure of the mind.  Giving paranoia a place of political privilege is a dysfunctional behavior, and behavior only possible in a dysfunctional society.  That's harsh, but it needs to be said.

  by killjoy on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 01:47:16 PM PDT

  •  guilty as charged

    to hopefully clarify - I think I have two strands of argument that are running into one another.

    One is that we need to see through the misdeeds of the current administration and the fact that they are full of crap when they use fear and propaganda as a way to excuse their criminal activity and refuse to be held accountable. Seeing through it means that there are cases in which perhaps breaking the law, as President, might be justifiable and that we should have some process that makes that accountability happen, because clearly we're having trouble with that. They hide what they do and avoid accountability. That might not be a problem with the system though, it might be a problem with how it's being used.

    Which takes me to the next strand of the argument, which is that it is this lack of accountability which I think is the administration's point of vulnerability and should be attacked and exposed. You can argue with wingnuts until the end of the world (literally, they would have you believe) about whether we should be torturing or spying without warrants. What there should be no argument about is that this is a nation of laws and of three branches of government, a free press, and a consenting populace - therefore, if you claim that you have to break the law, you should have to justify your claims - defend what you have done, and if you cannot, that face the consequences. Accountability.

    by nussbaumski on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 02:59:02 PM PDT

•  BushCo create crises

  Short version:

  I tend to sum this issue up with the idea of Mutually Assured Tyranny.  By his actions these past 5 years, Bush has been making MAT a reality in the world.  Every country on Earth now has the excuse to circumvent democratic principles.  BushCo compels this, especially in the Near East.  Sad.

  I saw this change of attitude in the news from the day he took office.  Was 9-11 inevitable or a consequence of BushCo?  We'll never know for sure, but there was an awful lot of diplomatic antagonism taking place by March of 01.

  Call me a crackpot, anti-Semitic, left-wing whacko, or what have you, but this I believe.  Not since Andrew Jackson told Chief Justice Marshall to enforce himself the Supreme Court's decision banning the forced removal of Cherokee people in the 1830s has a president committed such egregious offenses against the US Constitution, against the people.

  All he had to do was to get the warrants.

  by jcrit on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 01:48:14 PM PDT

•  Slope

  meet lubricant.

  You'd have made a "good German"

  by Deep Dark on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 02:08:39 PM PDT

  •  you disgust me

    that's pretty much all I have to say. An apology would be nice.

    by nussbaumski on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 03:00:29 PM PDT

•  This conversation would be improved ...

  ...immensely if the headline were changed, and the discussion were redirected away from Bush - who makes so many of us respond reflexively - and more to a general debate about when, if ever, high government officials should break the law, and which laws.

  by Meteor Blades on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 02:26:23 PM PDT

  •  Good point

    I think you're right, but in defense of the title, shouldn't we be able to separate our prejudices from our reasoning? Clearly the answer is frequently no. I'm not saying my diary was clear and I think I deserve part of the blame for being unclear - with both the title and the diary itself. But still, it's a little scary to see some of the reaction.

    by nussbaumski on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 03:03:25 PM PDT

    •  with all due respect, i agree that as a matter

      of discussion this issue without bush being the primary component would be fine. but, even though i don't think you intended it, the diary does not comes across in the manner you wished. our anger and fear of his power mongering is deep. i would hope that you would accord some of the posters the same respect you are requesting. i reviewed your other comments and i see thoughtful and reasoned comments.

      by stodghie on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 05:00:12 PM PDT

•  "I think there is something profoundly...

  right about that statement."

  Yes, FAR RIGHT.

  George W. Bush is a usurper and I cannot tolerate excuses being made for his Stalinist behavior.

  by jayatRI on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 02:30:13 PM PDT

•  Previous Post

  Losing the battle?

  It's easier than you think.

  On the one hand, we have a president who has 'clearly' broken the law.

  On the other, we must ask ourselves, "would we have done the same thing?"
  

  by TheOkie on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 04:16:25 PM PDT