[lbo-talk] too little too late?

R rhisiart at charter.net
Fri Jun 25 14:38:14 PDT 2004


gore deserves a lot of credit for giving two excellent speeches, one on the heels of the other. a refreshing change. one can tell they've hit home because the right wing echo machine is calling him "insane" and "crazy."

if he'd demonstrated this kind of spine four years ago, US history would be very different than it is today. he'd be president officially.

i wonder if we're going to hear the same kind of speeches from kerry four years from now if he looses the election -- all nader's fault, of course.

R

Published June 24, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

Democracy Itself is in Grave Danger by Al Gore American Constitution Society Georgetown University Law Center June 24, 2004

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/0624-15.htm

When we Americans first began, our biggest danger was clearly in view: we knew from the bitter experience with King George III that the most serious threat to democracy is usually the accumulation of too much power in the hands of an Executive, whether he be a King or a president. Our ingrained American distrust of concentrated power has very little to do with the character or persona of the individual who wields that power. It is the power itself that must be constrained, checked, dispersed and carefully balanced, in order to ensure the survival of freedom. In addition, our founders taught us that public fear is the most dangerous enemy of democracy because under the right circumstances it can trigger the temptation of those who govern themselves to surrender that power to someone who promises strength and offers safety, security and freedom from fear.

It is an extraordinary blessing to live in a nation so carefully designed to protect individual liberty and safeguard self-governance and free communication. But if George Washington could see the current state of his generation's handiwork and assess the quality of our generation's stewardship at the beginning of this twenty-first century, what do you suppose he would think about the proposition that our current president claims the unilateral right to arrest and imprison American citizens indefinitely without giving them the right to see a lawyer or inform their families of their whereabouts, and without the necessity of even charging them with any crime. All that is necessary, according to our new president is that he - the president - label any citizen an "unlawful enemy combatant," and that will be sufficient to justify taking away that citizen's liberty - even for the rest of his life, if the president so chooses. And there is no appeal.

What would Thomas Jefferson think of the curious and discredited argument from our Justice Department that the president may authorize what plainly amounts to the torture of prisoners - and that any law or treaty, which attempts to constrain his treatment of prisoners in time of war is itself a violation of the constitution our founders put together.

What would Benjamin Franklin think of President Bush's assertion that he has the inherent power - even without a declaration of war by the Congress - to launch an invasion of any nation on Earth, at any time he chooses, for any reason he wishes, even if that nation poses no imminent threat to the United States.

continued



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list