Friday, April 2, 2010

Rule of what?

Hume's Ghost makes a very good point:
As Greenwald notes [link], the Obama administration attempted to invoke state secrets to prevent the court from ruling on the Bush administration's criminal [NSA eavesdropping] program; yet that's the sort of thing that doesn't seem to bother the Beck's or Hannity's of the world: their conception of "tyranny" is the top marginal tax rate going up a few percentage points or the EPA preventing some corporation from dumping toxic waste into the local water.
While the right wing has gone into bizarro-cuckoo-conspiracy land where the Obama administration is concerned, it strangely gives a free pass to real-world instances where the administration is in the wrong. Not that surprising, though, since these are instances where the sins of the administration mesh with the sins of the previous one.

HG's "Quote of the day" from Greenwald bears repeating, in case you're too lazy to follow the links above:
That means that all 3 federal judges to consider the question have concluded that Bush's NSA program violated the criminal law (FISA). That law provides that anyone who violates it has committed a felony and shall be subject to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine for each offense. The law really does say that. Just click on that link and you'll see.  It's been obvious for more than four years that Bush, Cheney, NSA Director (and former CIA Director) Michael Hayden and many other Bush officials broke the law—committed felonies—in spying on Americans without warrants. Yet another federal judge has now found their conduct illegal. If we were a country that actually lived under The Rule of Law, this would be a huge story, one that would produce the same consequences for the lawbreakers as a bank robbery, embezzlement or major drug dealing. But since we're not such a country, it isn't and it doesn't.

No comments: