Lindsey Graham doesn't get it

[pecunium]

This quotation sums up what's wrong with a lot of the pundit class, which is bad enough:

"Here's what I think happened [after Sept. 11, 2001]: the nation was rattled. The administration went on the offensive and they looked at some statutes on the book as a way I wouldn't have looked at. They were very aggressive. They were going to make sure this didn't happen again, and they tried to come up with interrogation techniques, evaluating the law in a way I disagree with their evaluation. But there is not one iota of doubt in my mind they were trying to protect the nation.

"But they made mistakes. They saw the law, many times, as a nicety that we couldn't afford.

"So, they took a very aggressive interpretation of what the law would allow, and that came back to bite us. It always does.

"But that's not a crime. What we have to understand as a nation, is the fact that we embrace the rule of law is a strength, not a weakness."

I'll remember that the next time a cop pulls me over for making a left when it's prohibited (that's the last moving violation I got. I didn't see the sign). I'll just explain that I was rattled, and needed to make the turn, and the law was a nicety I couldn't afford.

I'm sure he'll understand.

It's bad enough when the pundit-class is spouting this nonesene, but this is a Senator. This is one of the people who has a job to see to it the rule of law he sees as such a strength, is upheld. He was so enamoured of the rule of law that he helped manage the impeachment trial of Clinton.

We aren't talking something he did out of a sense of duty, after the trial he kept it going.

''It's a time for the country as a whole to understand what went on here and where we're going to go,'' Mr. Graham said. ''What are the consequences of this case? What do you do with the next Federal judge who has got wandering hands in the office and someone's got the courage to say, 'No, you shouldn't treat me that way,' and he starts hiding evidence and getting others to lie for him -- what do we do with that case?''

...for Mr. Graham, 43, one of the 1994 class of Republican revolutionaries, it was a chance to demonstrate a down-home folksiness that stood in sharp contrast to the dour scowls and legal mumbo jumbo of many of his fellow managers. He became an instant hit on the all-Monica-all-the-time cable channels.

Was the Lewinsky scandal Watergate or Peyton Place? he mused out loud. What, after all, is a high crime, he asked. ''How about if an important person hurts somebody of low means?''

So a non-perjurious lie = a major crisis. A thing to impeach a president for, and then to keep in the public eye, because of the damage that fib is supposed to have done to the fabric of the law.

But illegal wiretaps, tortures, wars on false pretenses (some of which were based on the false confessions gained from torture. i.e. lies, to the nation, on which matters of policy were determined), those are things to put behind us. Forgive and forget.

I think the real difference is, Bill Clinton was a member of the Democratic Party, and Bush was a member of the Republican Party. It's not about laws, it's about who belongs to which club.

Comments

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

They'll claim that, if we hadn't used torture, there'd be dead Americans, and use the lack of the hypothetical dead Americans to "prove" that point.

"I mean one of the reasons these techniques have survived for about 500 years is, apparently, they work"

Yeah, he went and said that torture works. So why didn't we torture POWs during WWII? We were in a lot more danger then.

[shunra.livejournal.com]

Astrology, leeches, and putting curses on people by tying knots in their clothes have survived 500 years or more, too.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

One of those is actually useful, but not in the way they were originally used.

[shunra.livejournal.com]

indeed - but what made them useful was new thinking and scientific method - not "because that's the way we do it"...

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

"I mean one of the reasons these techniques have survived for about 500 years is, apparently, they work"

I do not know how that man can sleep at night.

[redbird]

Is he even listening to himself? If (as I agree) embrasing the rule of law is a strength, the law is not "a nicety that we can't afford," and breaking the law is a crime. Almost by definition. And it matters that these are crimes.

[jrittenhouse.livejournal.com]

It's not about laws, it's about who belongs to which club.

Basically, yes. For him.

[sylphslider.livejournal.com]

In my constitutional law class today I asked my professor if the Republicans impeached Clinton in revenge for the near-impeachment of Nixon. He said he thought very much that that was the case.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I don't think so.

If it was payback it was for making Bush pere worried he might be impeached for Iran Contra.

But I really think it was being drunk with power. They did it because they could.

[lorebubeck.livejournal.com]

This.

[harimad.livejournal.com]

I say it's because they could.

I was in Thailand at the time, and the Thais were totally confused and bemused by it. What was the big deal? Was this an official matter, did it affect Clinton's official behavior? Was impachment proportionate? Check out Wikipedia on the prince of Thailand's personal life for some additional insight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maha_Vajiralongkorn#Family

Watergate's repercussion have reverberated through the decades:

The only reason Reagan wasn't impeached for Iranamok was that they - the Senators involved - didn't think the US' world reputation couldn't stand another impeachment (or as good as) so soon after Nixon. (Source: one of the senators, in private conversation.)

Bork not making it to the Supreme Court was largely a result of his being willing to fire Archibald Cox. FYI, Bork wanted to resign by Richardson (AG) and Ruckelshous (Dep AG) both urged him not to, as a total leadership turnover would be a disaster. {Source: Richardson (IIRC) on a PBS documentary "Watergate.")

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

If that's the case, then Bork not making to the supreme court was a given; because had he been willing to stand up to Nixon, and do the right thing, Reagan would never have nominated him.

I have to say, is involvement in the Saturday Night Massacre didn't bother me, at the time, as much as his legal views did. No matter how you slice it, I don't think he was suited for the court. If the "real" reason he wasn't approved was that, then the senate was wrong; because his ideas on how to interpret the constitution are just nuts (and I don't mean his personal views on what things mean, I mean the methods he espouses for doing it. He could be all in sweet accord with me on the meaning of the document, I'd still say he ought not be on the court).

[janetl.livejournal.com]

I remember hearing this story on NPR during the Clinton administration: A phone survey was done shortly before the Monica Lewinsky story broke. Some of the surveyed said Clinton was doing a good job, others said not so much. Just a week or two later, the Monica story breaks, and it's made abundantly clear that Clinton lied*. Pollster realized "Oh! Interesting opportunity!" and calls the same people back and one of the questions they are asked is something like "is lying an impeachable offense?"

- Most people who liked Clinton a week earlier said it wasn't.

- Most people who disliked Clinton a week earlier said that it was.

Now, we could try to come up with a theory of personality styles that shows that people who are less uptight about sex also approve of more liberal economic policies, yadda yadda. I think the reason for those answers is that (1) we are pack animals at heart, and (2) we're not all that rational. I often pretend to myself that I am rational, and support my loved ones in their illusions, but no matter how hard we try, we're not automatons.

That said, I'm pretty sure that I'd damn well want to go after anyone who sanctioned torture, whether he's on my team or not.


*Is there any record of a politician being asked about non-socially-sanctioned sex who didn't lie about it? I guess that the present NY Governor might count, except that he volunteered information about his misbehavior before he was asked.

[libertango.livejournal.com]

"s there any record of a politician being asked about non-socially-sanctioned sex who didn't lie about it?"

Henry Cisneros. What tripped him up wasn't the sex, but that he'd been paying support to his mistress, and the numbers didn't add up.

I'd also make the question specific to the US. Old joke about diplomats discussing the Lewinsky thing:

* The French want to know why there's only one mistress.
* The Africans want to know why she isn't pregnant.
* The Russians want to know why she isn't dead.

[libertango.livejournal.com]

"It's not about laws, it's about who belongs to which club."

I've said "tribe," but yes. Today's Republican party is intensely tribal. Ideology doesn't matter, morality doesn't matter, legality doesn't matter. The only thing that matters to them is whether one is of the tribe or not.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Yes, tribe is better than club. I probably should have used it.

[lorebubeck.livejournal.com]

"But they made mistakes. They saw the law, many times, as a nicety that we couldn't afford."

Funny, I read this as a condemnation. Too bad he doesn't too.