Myopia (mine)

[pecunium]

Bertie has (though I forget it sometimes... I am not free of tunnel vision) a more damning statement than the torture paragrapgh.

He thinks the President is the law.

Ponder that.

It's a staggering claim, the authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

Inherent. Part and parcel of the office is the ability to set aside the laws. If the President says do it, it isn't a crime. If the law says do it, and the President says don't, that isn't a crime either.

Forget Nuremburg. Forget Nixon (though he tried that gambit) forget the Rule of Law (how can one who is able to set a law aside, break one? The don't apply). Forget the consent of the governed. Forget the Magna Carta.

The President is above, nay, beyond the law. He defines it. He is the same, in effect, as Louis XIV. "L'Etat, C'est Moi"

Everyone should recoil. Republicans should be apalled. Democrats should be disgusted. Libertarians should tremble with righteous indignation.

But all of us should step back and think on it.

The proposed head of law enforcement for the United States has said that his boss answers to nothing but his sense of right and wrong.

I recall a previous leader of the people of America who thought that. His name too was George; George III.

Comments

There are three ethical grenades he's got going in the air

[bellatrys.livejournal.com]

1. He thinks Torture is okay in itself.
--This being the obvious one that has the effect of being hit in the face with an iceball, regardless of it being in the news, on most genuinely decent people, the one causing the most disbelief that "I won't do it any more, promise!" is considered okay in America today.

2. He thinks that it's okay to execute the possibly-innocent.
--This the buried past which shows *why* he was chosen for his Henching promotion, and equally as heinous as #1, though perhaps not to our capital-punishment fandom culture.

3. He thinks whatever the Great Eye wants is automatically okay.
--I strongly suspect, but have not hard evidence in word or deed of his, that it is not a *personal* loyalty, the misguided loyalty to a friend such as finds people torn over whether or not to turn in little bro the serial killer, but rather a loyalty to the uniform of power, saluting whoever happens to be wearing it. That is, if it were any other member of House Bush, he would be no less servile; if it were a different house of the Plutocracy - a DeVos or a Cabot - he would be equally facilitating.


How all these things relate to each other is - a mess. Did he suppress his natural revulsion against the idea of mistakenly killing innocent citizens because his Master was for it, and thus corrupt himself to the point where all laws are nothing, and no human behavior is to heinous (because most people do, and always have, seen something particularly inhuman in torturing people either apart from or as part of, an execution) to be endorsed in the service of the Dark Tower?

Or did it go the other way - was there ever any of that "natural revulsion" which is actually not as common as all that, against hurting the helpless, or did he rather gravitate towards those amoral and powerful who elevated Bush II and rise because he was *exactly* the sort of person who would not experience any of the moral qualms that make honorable, loyal advisors say "Hey! Stop! Can't *do* that, sire!" even if their consciences are ultimately their political downfall--?

Again, I have no proof but watching and hearing his voice and reading his words and those of the people around him. But I think it's the second option.

But when people say "he's not so dangerous, he's not as crazy as Ashcroft, they could nominate someone worse" - frankly, I don't see how. Another smiling power-worshipping villain with no conscience, no honor, no regard even for his former fellow-servicemen and women, who can nevertheless pass as a civilized mensch - Orcs in tuxes still orcses and more dangerous for seeming decent chaps.