> At 09:58 PM 11/30/01 -0500, Mina Kumar wrote:
>>> From: "Daniel Davies" <dsquared at al-islam.com>
>>>
>>> >Bush should be impeached if he implements the secret military
>>> >court. That's dictatorship. The way to deal with enemy soldiers is to
>>> >put them in prison camps, not hold secret trials. Prisoners of war
>>> >have rights. If you take them out and shoot them after a secret trial,
>>> >you are a war criminal. Charles Brown
>>>
>>> errrrmmm ... the fact that you are describing Bush as a dictator in your
>>> second sentence after calling for him to be impeached by democratically
>>> elected houses of parliament in your first suggests to me that Kelley,
>>> Justin, Brad et al might have a point when they talk about "knee-jerk
>>> anti-Americanism"?
>>
>> He didn't say Bush was a dictator, he said if Bush assumes dictatorial
>> powers, i.e. subverts democracy, the democratic process should remove
>> him from power. It occurs to me that there may be a point in you
>> reading a little more slowly.
>
> the key word was "describing". charles describes a single act as
> dictatorship. dictatorship n : a form of government in which the ruler
> is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or
> opposition etc.) it is not a dictatorship if bush assumes that one
> particular power. were it a dictatorship, then there would be no
> democratic institutions for him to draw on.
>
aren't we really nitpicking here? mina kumar provides a fair reinterpretation of the sentence... can't we work with that? the crux of the point - that bush acts in a manner that subverts democratic processes and hence his act resemble those of a dictator - remains worthy of being addressed wouldnt you agree?
--ravi