The Good, the Bad, and the Volokh
Am I alone in getting utterly pissed off every time Volokh n off tries to pawn off his Academic Legal Writing on the VC? We get it! You want to sell your book. No need for a new post during every holiday. He's already done the "With the start of law school..." bit several times. Christmas and New Years...check. I'm just waiting for, "Well it's Easter, and what Jesus really could have used on the cross is some good Academic Legal Writing." Anyway, I just think it's really tacky.
Below that, Prof. Kerr reveals that he's in the midst of writing a post on the whole NSA fiasco. I can't wait to read that. I haven't written anything about it myself because I only skimmed the NY Times story without thinking about too much. But after two days of not doing any studying, I can say this. I'm incredibly troubled by the supporters of Bush and even non-supporters having the following reaction: "What's the big deal? It's not like they're going to eves drop on me." I heard another version of this on NPR's Talk of the Nation regarding the use of cell phones to pin point someone's location. The caller said, "Well I don't think anyone has thought this out, but if you're a law obiding citizen, then you really don't have anything to lose from this. I mean it's not like your location itself can be a crime." The host had to correct him and remind him that in the 50s someone's attendance at a particular meeting WAS a crime.
And that's what we're in danger of forgetting--the other times in history when we cheerfully gave away our civil liberties like a bunch of animals on a farm for the sake of fighting some common enemy (or as the case was in WWII for the sake of manifesting inherent racism). As far as the legalese is concerned, I'd wait until Kerr's post, but it seems to me the gist of the Prez's argument is that the authorization of force, and his powers as commander in chief (ah those amazing powers) allowed him to gather intel against the enemy without relying on courts. Interesting argument, how about this: Because we're in a state of war, or a Jihad if you will, we should all fearGod Allah, and give away all of our power to the proverbial "strong man" and have him rule over us with no bounds. Oh how wonderful, Dick Cheney and a few Middle Eastern regional heads would be proud. Honestly, this should not be a Dem vs. Rep issue. What's the point of fighting a war if the very thing we're fighting for is being lost at home? I really don't give a flying fuck if it's Al Qaeda ransacking my home or DHS.
UPDATE: "The fact that we are discussing these measures is helping the enemy." -- El Presidente. I think he forgot to add, "booga booga booga."
UPDATE II: Prof. Kerr's analysis here. On the cable news circuit I've heard a couple of constant Bushist talking points (since at least some Reps in Congress are not buying into it). First, there is no shortage of mentioning "terrorists" "9/11" and "war." This is just pathetic. Second, "plenary power" or "Commander-in-Chief" powers. Again, this is also pathetic. The Commander-in-Chief could not send active duty forces to help with Katrina because Congress limited that authority. That's why I'm not too impressed with the argument that FISA is unconstitutional because it encroaches on a pres's inherent powers.
Oh and what's with the release of Dr. Germ and Mrs. Anthrax? Any given 007 movie has better "Evil" names.
Below that, Prof. Kerr reveals that he's in the midst of writing a post on the whole NSA fiasco. I can't wait to read that. I haven't written anything about it myself because I only skimmed the NY Times story without thinking about too much. But after two days of not doing any studying, I can say this. I'm incredibly troubled by the supporters of Bush and even non-supporters having the following reaction: "What's the big deal? It's not like they're going to eves drop on me." I heard another version of this on NPR's Talk of the Nation regarding the use of cell phones to pin point someone's location. The caller said, "Well I don't think anyone has thought this out, but if you're a law obiding citizen, then you really don't have anything to lose from this. I mean it's not like your location itself can be a crime." The host had to correct him and remind him that in the 50s someone's attendance at a particular meeting WAS a crime.
And that's what we're in danger of forgetting--the other times in history when we cheerfully gave away our civil liberties like a bunch of animals on a farm for the sake of fighting some common enemy (or as the case was in WWII for the sake of manifesting inherent racism). As far as the legalese is concerned, I'd wait until Kerr's post, but it seems to me the gist of the Prez's argument is that the authorization of force, and his powers as commander in chief (ah those amazing powers) allowed him to gather intel against the enemy without relying on courts. Interesting argument, how about this: Because we're in a state of war, or a Jihad if you will, we should all fear
UPDATE: "The fact that we are discussing these measures is helping the enemy." -- El Presidente. I think he forgot to add, "booga booga booga."
UPDATE II: Prof. Kerr's analysis here. On the cable news circuit I've heard a couple of constant Bushist talking points (since at least some Reps in Congress are not buying into it). First, there is no shortage of mentioning "terrorists" "9/11" and "war." This is just pathetic. Second, "plenary power" or "Commander-in-Chief" powers. Again, this is also pathetic. The Commander-in-Chief could not send active duty forces to help with Katrina because Congress limited that authority. That's why I'm not too impressed with the argument that FISA is unconstitutional because it encroaches on a pres's inherent powers.
Oh and what's with the release of Dr. Germ and Mrs. Anthrax? Any given 007 movie has better "Evil" names.
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 11:02 AM
5 Comments:
Have you seen the articles where former Rep Bob Barr is attacking the president? When you have an ultra-conservative like that saying it was wrong, you know something is up.
Have you seen that people are starting to use the "i" word, as in impeachment? Bush has admitted to committing a serious crime (spying on Americans without a warrant).
Also, our very own John Yoo evidently also wrote the memo justifying this criminal action. Not that I'm surprised or anything.
Volokh is trying to pawn off his Academic Legal Writing on the Viet Cong?! Well, I guess its just in time for Tet...
-"Comrades, our glorious leaders have sent us Volokh's Academic Legal Writing! We will use it to... argue with imperialists!"
Are there any awful Bush Admin. memos that Yoo did NOT write?
It appears that as the administration's #1 hack attorney, they entrusted him with writing the memo for every crazy policy that had.
Post a Comment
<< Home