Sunday, December 25, 2005

Finally, What I Wanted for Christmas

A shred, just the smallest shred of integrity from someone on the Right. Looks like I got it, no matter how short lived it will prove to be.

From the Wall Street Journal owned Barrons (Subscription only)

AS THE YEAR WAS DRAWING TO A CLOSE, we picked up our New York Times and learned that the Bush administration has been fighting terrorism by intercepting communications in America without warrants. It was worrisome on its face, but in justifying their actions, officials have made a bad situation much worse: Administration lawyers and the president himself have tortured the Constitution and extracted a suspension of the separation of powers.

. . .

Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.
It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.


. . .

Published reports quote sources saying that 14 members of Congress were notified of the wiretapping. If some had misgivings, apparently they were scared of being called names, as the president did last week when he said: "It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."

Wrong. If we don't discuss the program and the lack of authority for it, we are meeting the enemy -- in the mirror.

It won't last of course, but it is a sign that the current administration has gone too far even for it's allies. No one (except Cheney) wants a return to the days of Nixon when the president could wiretap the competition.

To my republican friends out there who think I am making too much of this, answer me one question. Is this the kind of power in the presidency you want to leave to President Hillary Clinton?

Barrons quote via

3 comments:

Brian Dunbar said...

To my republican friends out there who think I am making too much of this, answer me one question. Is this the kind of power in the presidency you want to leave to President Hillary Clinton?

I'm not a Republican - well I'm in the party but I don't think of myself as a Republican - and I dunno if I'm your friend or not ...

No, of course not. It's like a ultra-leftie finding out that the same laws allowing you to restrict land-use for good ends (saving the ducks) can be used to build a shopping mall. "Yes the law says you can do that but that's not what it's for!"

You can't give the guv'mint too much power, against the day you'll be a minority. Shrug.

richmanwisco said...

Well said, Mark. It amazes me that anytime anybody says something that's well reasoned, that somebody has to conclude there's an agenda behind the comment. Whatever happened to common sense?

MAH said...

FTR, I'm not advocating HC for president. In fact I'm hoping against hope she doesn't even run. It will be Mondale all over again.

Kelo. Yes, I'm sure that's left a bitter taste in a lot of mouths. The upside of Kelo though is that the states are legislating to stop that from happening.

As it should be.