(In)Security Primacy

Life has been alarmingly busy as of late - school, life, work and PAB have left me with little time for complaining. Bummer, as there has been quite a bit going on in the world worthy of note.

I have taken the basic idea from Digby's mega-blog and will not pretend to be doing little more than borrowing text for a while. It resonates with me in that it is a reminder to us regarding just how far things have changed in the past seven years. Short version:

In an American contest, "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" should matter just as much as life (remember Patrick Henry?). Justice, the general welfare and liberty should matter just as much as the common defense and domestic tranquility. We have really lost our way on this front, to the point that even saying your first priority as President or in Congress is anything but security is considered blasphemy. That is an incredibly frustrating, teeth-grinding loss of our national purpose, to such an extent that it has become an untouchable symptom in our national decline.

When you stop and think about it, this is illuminating. The rise of the military industrial complex to an unquestioned and dominating influence on both political parties, and the effect this has on our own vision of America belittles it's effect as a lens that we see our entire national image. Some time ago there was this guy who said (amongst other things):

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Naturally, this is Dwight Eisenhower. It really is a refreshing thing to read after seven years of this cheeze-wiz president.

Now that we have an appetizer to work on, we get to the real meat. Or tofu or whatever. Again, a short quote to begin (from the LA Times):

The recent decisions of Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey to block any prosecution of Bush administration officials for contempt and to block any criminal investigation of torture led to a chorus of criticism. Many view the decisions as raw examples of political manipulation of the legal process and overt cronyism. I must confess that I was one of those crying foul until I suddenly realized that there was something profound, even beautiful, in Mukasey's action.

In his twisting of legal principles, the attorney general has succeeded in creating a perfect paradox. Under Mukasey's Paradox, lawyers cannot commit crimes when they act under the orders of a president -- and a president cannot commit a crime when he acts under advice of lawyers.

Interesting. An entire branch of government immune from the same laws that bind the remainder of the citizenry. I have spent endless time discussing the lawyer fetishism which seems to be endlessly overpowering for the executive branch. This rational is the logical conclusion of that ideology. Immunity from rule of law by changing the language and interpretation of law. Like kids covering their eyes insisting that you have disappeared. That war crimes and the systematic elimination of civil liberties are negotiable.

I was going to map this whole mess into the FISA telco immunity circus playing itself out over the past week or so. This is a broken dirty mess which encompasses both parties being culpable to this assault on our rights. The end result being immunity for the executive branch law breaking.

At this point I am so dulled to the daily routine that anger. There is much more, but it is late and there is a large quantity of code to be written.