This was originally a late posted comment, that some suggested should be a diary. I agree. It is in reference to fightorleave's
piece likening Jack Nicholson's classic "you can't handle the truth" speech in "A few Good Men," to the Bush administration's attitude on the Constitution, and on the public's right to know:
"I thought about it also. Full democracies are built upon the premise of being tough enough to handle the truth, and in any regard certainly not allowing someone else with unfettered power over the people to make those decisions for them. (I.e., we make those decisions that effect us, through our duly elected representatives (Congress), not the Executive Branch). Monarchies, built upon the premise of not being tough enough to be able to.
Regarding your well taken point, I draw your attention to the first two paragraphs (the first is actually a quote from Orwell) from a piece worth continually referencing:
"There is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods ... These people don't see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you. Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists without trial, and perhaps the process won't stop at Fascists." - George Orwell, The Freedom of the Press
The strength and importance of How Would A Patriot Act? as a polemic is that it lays out a clear and easy to follow case that the Bush administration, acting on radical legal theory developed by John Yoo, has claimed for itself unlimited executive power to prosecute an indefinite "war on terror." [Greenwald] develops this central premise by going through various administration scandals - the use of torture, imprisonment of US citizens without due process, NSA domestic surveillance in violation of the law, etc - and relating how they follow logically from John Yoo's belief that nothing, not Congress, nor the Courts, can limit the president's power to act in the name of national security.
While at the same time, illustrating the media's horrendous coverage of this, I think this somber (not so funny) diary lays out the principles pretty well.
This comment gives a few shorter summations. An example, as repeated elsewhere:
It's called the far right wing assault on the most basic structures of our Constitution. The very same document that it has been spouting forth on the solemnity of for years, it turns out, it either doesn't believe in, or doesn't understand.
The far right, and the Bush Administration, just don't understand the principles, that make America, America.
And these principles have to be laid out, and explained. They are not necessarily self evident.
In a piece that I am writing, I reference Yoo's logic as follows, and I believe this (and similar) cases have to be made outside of this blogosphere (in other words, share it):
To disregard it in time of "war," as Professor John Yoo of Berkeley....argues in favor of the President's right to do whatever he wants as Commander in Chief...is tantamount to arguing that the Constution itself does not apply in any alleged "Time of War."
Aside from the fact that; 1) the Constitution conveys Congressional power with more specificity with respect to war than to the President, and 2) the fact that neither the Article I Section I grant of all legislative authority to Congress, nor the Article II, Section II designation of the President as, quote, "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States," neither state nor imply any alteration in the basic separation of powers enumerated therein - such an interpretation is also illogical:
It would render the most basic premise of the Constitution itself -- to establish a system of overlapping checks and balances, and a clear delineation of powers therein -- completely null and void in all times of war or alleged war.
[As a side note, while it is clear that Yoo's scholarly credentials are impressive, he is just wrong here, or, just simply doesn't believe in the basic principles that make America, America, and that America was founded upon. Also, while it really isn't that relevant, it is interesting to note that Yoo clerked for Justice Thomas, who has expressed some pretty radical views as Justice.]