A Brief Primer Designed to Help You Understand the Workings of Our New, Streamli

[Guest guest]

" Zepp " <zepp

Tue, 03 Jan 2006 07:16:04 -0800

[Zepps_News] A brief primer to understand the new American system

 

 

 

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0102-31.htm

 

 

/Published on Monday, January 2, 2006 by the// San Francisco Chronicle

<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/02/DD\

G5TG01E31.DTL & type=printable>/

 

 

*A Brief Primer Designed to Help You Understand the Workings of Our New,

Streamlined American System of Government*

 

*by Jon Carroll*

 

 

Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic

used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the

president's foremost apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize

for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the

relevant arguments.

 

 

* * *

 

/

 

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps

of American citizens?/

 

Because he is the president.

 

/

Does the president always have that power?/

 

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

 

/

When will the war on terror be over?/

 

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a

tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any

means he deems appropriate.

 

/

Why does the president have that power?/

 

It's in the Constitution.

 

/

Where in the Constitution?/

 

It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is

protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the

Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

 

/

Who decides what measures are necessary to keep America safe?/

 

The president.

 

/

Who has oversight over the actions of the president?/

 

The president oversees his own actions. If at any time he determines

that he is a danger to America, he has the right to wiretap himself,

name himself an enemy combatant and spirit himself away to a secret

prison in Egypt.

 

/

But isn't there a secret court, the FISA court, that has the power to

authorize wiretapping warrants? Wasn't that court set up for just such

situations when national security is at stake?/

 

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might disagree with the

president. It might thwart his plans. It is a danger to the democracy

that we hold so dear. We must never let the courts stand in the way of

America's safety.

 

/

So there are no guarantees that the president will act in the best

interests of the country?/

 

The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he

represents the will of the people. The people would never act against

their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against

the best interests of the people. It's a doctrine I like to call " the

triumph of the will. "

 

/

But surely the Congress was also elected by the people, and therefore

also represents the will of the people. Is that not true?/

 

Congress? Please.

/

 

It's sounding more and more as if your version of the presidency

resembles an absolute monarchy. Does it?/

 

Of course not. We Americans hate kings. Kings must wear crowns and

visit trade fairs and expositions. The president only wears a cowboy

hat and visits military bases, and then only if he wants to.

/

 

Can the president authorize torture?/

 

No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

/

 

Could those appropriate means include torture?/

 

It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely

appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism.

The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

/

 

Won't the American people object?/

 

Not if they're scared enough.

/

 

What if the Supreme Court rules against the president?/

 

The president has respect for the Supreme Court. We are a nation of

laws, not of men. In the unlikely event that the court would rule

against the president, he has the right to deny that he was ever doing

what he was accused of doing, and to keep further actions secret. He

also has the right to rename any practices the court finds repugnant.

" Wiretapping " could be called " protective listening. " There's nothing

the matter with protective listening.

/

 

Recently, a White House spokesman defended the wiretaps this way:

" This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little

League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are

designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who

have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches. "

If these very bad people have blown up churches, why not just arrest

them?/

 

That information is classified.

/

 

Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?/

 

No, they haven't, which is proof that the system works. The president

does reserve the right to blow up gay terrorist weddings -- but only

if he determines that the safety of the nation is at stake. The

president is also keeping his eye on churches, many of which have

become fonts of sedition. I do not believe that the president has any

problem with commuter trains, although that could always change.

/

 

So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?/

 

Election? Let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to

it. It may not be wise to have an election in a time of national peril.

 

 

 

2006 San Francisco Chronicle

 

###

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/02/DDG\

5TG01E31.DTL & type=printable

 

--

" Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government

talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court

order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about

chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order

before we do so "

-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004