Over at Unclaimed Territory, the hyperprolific (not a criticism), Bush-hating Glenn Greenwald reminds us that the Watergate scandal “unfolded over the course of three years.” [It was over two, not three, years, but that’s besides the point.]
Greenwald then proceeds to say this:
- In the short two weeks since this [NSA] scandal was disclosed, there have been all sorts of obfuscatory smoke screens thrown up by blindly loyal Bush defenders, who have paraded before the cameras and spewed forth all sorts of esoteric legalisms about “inherent authority†and the AUMF [the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq] in order to cloud what is, in reality, an exceptionally clear issue.
- But that smoke will clear as more facts are revealed. Americans will realize that Congress – with the agreement of the Executive Branch and the intelligence community – all agreed that eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant should be and is a crime. And knowing that, Bush ordered his Government to do it anyway. He therefore broke the law, and is unrepentant about it. Once the smoke clears, those are not difficult concepts to grasp, and Americans—thanks to Watergate—have a visceral aversion to illegal White House eavesdropping and Presidents who claim the right to break the law. These are not difficult issues to explain.
- Ultimately, the focus must remain on the fact that the President acted in violation of the law and brazenly claims the right to do so. Democrats and everyone else who care about the rule of law should be guided by their passion and anger over that fact. Everything else will follow from it.
For the past 10 years, Greenwald was [has been?] a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges (including some of the highest-profile free speech cases over the past few years), civil rights cases, and corporate and security fraud matters.
If Greenwald were prosecuting Bush, I could understand the certainty with which he expresses his view. But he’s not. Surely, he knows that there are other legal eagles not connected to the Administration who believe differently. Before all the evidence is in, he’s convicted Bush. So what we have here is a highly-educated individual who has let his visceral dislike of Bush blind him to the possibile validity of opposing opinions.
(cross-posted in response to your comment on my blog):
Please see my post at http://americanfuture.net/?p=1124
Marc – I’ve repeatedly acknowledged – and refuted – the arguments advanced in order to justify Bush’s eavesdropping on American citizens in violation of FISA. See, for instance, here.
Just because there are people who try to justify certain behavior doesn’t mean there is a justification for that behavior. George Bush is the President of the United States – if he were to go on a murderous throat-slitting spree tomorrow on video, he’d have lots of his own lawyers (along with Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt and Sean Hannity) saying he did nothing wrong. That wouldn’t mean that the legal issues were unclear.
The FISA statute could not be clearer – anyone who eavesdrops without a judicial warrant (except in circumstances even the Administration does not claim exist here) is guilty of a criminal offense. Thus, the only way the legal issue can be “unclear” is if there is some theory that allows the President to eavesdrop in violation of this statute. For the reasons I’ve addressed at length, the theories being offered to justify this law-breaking are frivolous, after-the-fact excuses designed to save George Bush.
Why do you think that I or anyone else has an obligation to pretend that the legal issues are unclear?
[...] Earlier today, in “Unwarranted Certainty,” I criticized the position taken by Glenn Greenwald on NSA surveillance. He responded to my post; this is my reply. [...]
“Just because there are people who try to justify certain behavior doesn’t mean there is a justification for that behavior. George Bush is the President of the United States – if he were to go on a murderous throat-slitting spree tomorrow on video, he’d have lots of his own lawyers (along with Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt and Sean Hannity) saying he did nothing wrong. That wouldn’t mean that the legal issues were unclear.”
Or this:
“Why do you think that I or anyone else has an obligation to pretend that the legal issues are unclear?”
Far more than Bush-hating, a broader psychology is revealed here. These are transparently and invidiously cheap rhetorical formulations expressing what is almost a caligulan contempt and imperious artifice – and wholly vacated of substance. Excuse me while I grab my red cape and don my matador costume.
This is a real and substantive issue which needs to be squarely faced within the Constitutional and statutory frameworks, the historical and legal history and within the various existential frameworks and contingencies as well. But the virtually caligulan manifestations reflected above, and already in other forums, evidences yet another of the existential qualities which will need to be faced, and squarely and unflinchingly faced at that.
Far more than Bush-hating, a broader psychology is revealed here. These are transparently and invidiously cheap rhetorical formulations expressing what is almost a caligulan contempt and imperious artifice – and wholly vacated of substance. Excuse me while I grab my red cape and don my matador costume.
I’ve written at least 10 rather lengthy posts rebutting the legal arguments, case law citations, and statutory analysis on which the ever-shifting legal theories used to defend George Bush are based (see the post for which I provided a link in my first comment as an example). My conclusion that these defenses are frivolous is based on those analyses, and is not the by-product of conclusory, substance-free name-calling. One would be unable to say the same for your comment (“These are transparently and invidiously cheap rhetorical formulations expressing what is almost a caligulan contempt and imperious artifice – and wholly vacated of substance”).
No, I wasn’t proffering what I had written as an argument or rebuttal, it was rather, and obviously so, a straight-forward commentary on the two quotes I provided (I could have noted additional quotes btw), no more – but also no less. Your latest here is therefore a strawman – yet another piece of changeling rhetoric.
Additionally, and in further refutation of your attempted strawman deflection, I quite overtly noted: “This is a real and substantive issue which needs to be squarely faced within the Constitutional and statutory frameworks, the historical and legal history and within the various existential frameworks and contingencies as well.”
This is a political issue, NOT a Legal one. Slavery was legal. It became illegal thru a political process (aka the Civil War). Were any slave holding Presidents Impeached?
Impeachment is a Political tactic, it has absolutly nothing to do with the Law. That you think otherwise shows how out of touch with reality you are. With the current Republican control of Congress, PRESIDENT Bush COULD run amoke with a kitchen knifs and not be impeached. You claim to be a legal scholar and yet demonstrate absolutly no familiarity with reality. The foundation of Law, isn’t the law or the people that make it, but the guys with badges and guns (most of whom, if offered a choice between shooting a Lawyer or shooting anything else would waste the Lawyer). Impeachment is what ever the House says it is. If the Senate agrees the President committed a crime that warrants his removal from office, then he might be removed from office. MIGHT be. Remember, If he decides to stay, it will take armed force to remove him. That would be a civil war. Good Luck with that.
Bring it on.
Make my day.
I can see it now, the ACLU and the Coalition to Ban Handguns in a firefight with the US Marine Corps.
Film at 10. Every redneck with a hunting rifle (about 40 million, including me) will be headed to town to shoot him a democrat before they are all gone. You think the first day of deer season is wild, while till we start playing Cowboys and Democrats.