To My Fellow Americans:
Hey there. Hi. I'm one of those guys who takes a lot of crap for you out there in the world: an American who lives somewhere else. Maybe that doesn't mean diddly to you if you've never left Montana or Idaho, but there are several million of us out here. It's been a little tough on us for the last few years. See, we kind of ping pong back and forth between having to hear a lot of hateful stuff - some of it understandable, some of it not. And we're asked to defend, in many cases, policies we don't particularly agree with.
Many of us felt as raw as you after 9/11. I know that the hours I spent wondering if my relatives working in the Twin Towers got out were not among my fave days ever. (They did, Thank God.)
I remember greeting the "you know America kind of deserved this" comments with both contempt and derision. I didn't back down. I defended my country with passion and intellect.
And one of the things I kept coming back to was the elegance of the Founding Fathers' great experiment: how well thought out it was, how elegant, how very, very revolutionary.
I read the Constitution of the United States of America for the first time when I was about fourteen. The whole thing. It's amazing how many of us haven't -- like Catholics who've never read the Bible.
Though there are some things in the document that aren't particularly elegant -- I'm thinking the part about 3/5ths of persons -- and I'm also pretty sure that the Framers wouldn't want us to forget the part of the 2nd Amendment where they say, "a well organized militia" -- but I thought then, and still do now, that it was pretty great that a document that's over 200 years old could have been as forward-thinking as it was.
Now I know there are battles. And I know there's partisanship. And I know that the divisions in our nation run deeply. But read that wonderful document for yourselves. And imagine you're there, with those men two hundred years ago trying to design a system of government that resists the pull of demagogues. Imagine the brilliance of coming up with a system where three branches of government function as checks on each other -- keeping an eye on each other so that the public interest is served. Imagine that you've chafed under a system where a King wields absolute authority and cannot be questioned, and you've come up with a better way.
Now. Close that magnificent document, and look me in the eye, and tell me that the people who came up with that document would think it's okay that the President set aside the highest law of the land and authorized spying on fellow citizens. He didn't have to do it: the existing law allowed him a way to do it, but the law, he decided, was inconvenient. And so, with the stroke of a pen, he chose to ignore it.
The American President does not have the power to do that.
The American President didn't just ignore an inconvenient 1978 law. He subverted the Constitution of the United States.
American Democracy is an ongoing experiment. It's never perfect. And sometimes it works better than others.
But there are millions of us out here, in other countries, who have to defend those principles against people who think they're bunk, and that no one believes in them, really.
Well, I do.
Do you?
If so, please, please, please -- Say Something. Call and Write your Congressman, your Senator -- and tell them this is not OK.
I don't care if you hate George W. Bush. I don't care if you think he's a Godly man. I want you to read that document and say, "that's not the way the country's supposed to work. And that's not the way the Presidency's supposed to work."
Please tell him "no." So I, and the millions of us out here in the world trying to keep that American experiment alive in our hearts, know what to say when people ask.
Because if you don't say anything, then I'm afraid I got nothing.
14 comments:
One hopes that public outrage over this will not be quelled by the fact that the story broke duringi the most distracting time of the year. (Thanks, NYT!) Of course, one hoped that public outrage over faulty intelligence and no WMDs would have led to Bush's defeat in the 2004 election, but go figure....
Relax. He's not authorizing "spying on fellow citizens" he's allowing law enforcement agencies to conduct surveilance on known terrorists using the same RICO statutes that are currently in use against drug dealers and organized crime. The only people who have to worry about this are the terrorists.
It's funny that the first person who comments when I lift the "no anonymous comments" setting is someone who uses the cover of privacy to say "don't worry" about privacy.
I will not even attempt to argue this one based on the trust issues with this President. Because, frankly, that's not even the strongest argument.
Go read this argument:
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/12/giving-drunks-power.html
That's what the administration is arguing. And that's why everything going back to the Federalist Papers say it's a bad thing.
"Don't Worry Be Happy" is simply not an option in this case. To defend the actions of the President on this one, I think, bumps up against treason. It's an absolutely indefensible position, on the facts, on the law, and on procedural grounds, too.
Republicans should be as leery as this as Democrats. And any Libertarians out there -- well, their heads should have just flown off.
You take crap for yourself and only yourself. We all make our own decisions in life and must live with the consequences.
I've read the wonderful document you speak of, a copy of it hangs prominently in my home. I treasure it. Anyone with a third grade education can recognize its flaws. Following it to the letter would tie our hands - there's a lot of gray area that can be interpreted to mean very different things - just like the Bible.
The only time I say something to my congressperson is when I vote. You got something to say to your congressperson - say it yourself.
em, you clearly do not understand the document of which you speak.
The point of the revolt against the British and the fundamental idea behind the Constitution is that no one person or body should have unchecked authority, like the King of England did.
Regardless of whether it's good for fighting terrorists, it violates the very spirit of the idea of America the free country.
If you are happy for the President to have dictator powers, then get the Constitution scrapped.
Until then, Bush broke the law, and violated the most important ideal of the founding fathers.
Yes, the Constitution has its flaws and many have been repaired by subsequent Amendments. Others are still there to be dealt with whenever the nation finds it necessary to do so. This does not mean that the President and his Cabinet can, with or without the Congress, violate it at his pleasure. He cannot in any fashion play games with the one thing that defines America. It is the responsibilty of the Governors to defend and protect the lands of the USA, it is the President's responsibility to defend the Constitution.
He cannot cherrypick the document and no amount of fearmongering about 9/11 or that saber-rattling megalomaniac Saddam Hussein, changes the realities of the document. He, like every other citizen, needs a judge to sign a warrant if he wants to violate the rights of citizens in their own homes. Just because he is a fat-ass, lazy thinking SOB who is unwilling to go an inch out of his way to follow the laws of the land, is no reason that we should let him off lightly. That he would violate his sworn oath so easily tells us enough about his character to doubt every action that he choses to take.
If a man is only as good as his sworn word, he has a lot to answer for on this plane and the next. Under American law he is simply one among equals with a tough job that he fought hard to have. He needs to do the job that he applied for and not whatever it is that he thinks that he is doing.
Konrad,
WWI
WWII
Definitely not the first time something like this has happened during war time. While abuses can occur, they do not last because of our check and balance system, not to mention all of our other rights.
Agree or disagree about the reasons, our countries are allies in a war. History will be a better judge of President Bush, than any of us now.
P.S.
Were you as worried about laws when Clinton was President as you are now?
Screenwriting is much more enjoyable than politics.
Our anonymous friends here, I believe, are in full troll mode. The whole point of the post that was responded to was that, in fact, I, like millions of other Americans abroad -- do not have a congressman or woman to complain to.
Someone who claims to venerate the Constitution to have it in their home -- I have it too, by the way, on the shelf next to my Bible, my Koran, a book on Kabbalah I was given as a joke, Zinn's A People's History of the United States and the Concise Oxford dictionary I got for academic excellence, in, um...eighth grade -- should probably understand it a little better.
The one thing said our anonymous cold-water pal said I agree with is "We all make our own decisions in life and must live with the consequences."
Bill Clinton perjured himself about a sordid little blowjob and was impeached.
George W. Bush ignored the law, and declared that his authority superseded the authority laid out for him in the founding document of the Republic.
Let's see if the consequences to that match up.
If they don't, it's just a piece of paper.
Again, I do not expect Republicans to abandon their standard bearer -- ill advised as his stewardship has been -- but the patriots among them will say, "On, this, you have gone too far. You are not a dictator."
Yet.
And anon was right about one more thing, too -- a third grader probably could, with a little prompting, be made to understand the provisions of "Executive Powers" as spelled out in the Constitution of the United States.
But this President either doesn't--or doesn't care.
And I honestly don't know which is worse.
People talk about Bush derangement syndrome, but there is another strange syndrome revealing itself with these apologists.
There is not just one way to fight terror, there are in fact infinite ways, many not so completely foolish and self destructive.
(Hi NSA employee:) I'm sure you're a very nice fellow:) Say hi to your shift supervisor for me :) Please don't extraordinarily render me :)
Merry Christmas :D
"Relax. He's not authorizing "spying on fellow citizens" he's allowing law enforcement agencies to conduct surveilance on known terrorists using the same RICO statutes that are currently in use against drug dealers and organized crime. The only people who have to worry about this are the terrorists."
Incorrect. The laws currently on the books that allow for this type of surveilience dictate that the President must go through the courts to do so.
Given the context of what is going on in the world, approval from the courts would have surely been granted and gladly so. Unfortunately, the President, in a reckless disregard for the laws and the Constitution, set about doing all of this in secret, circumventing the checks and balances put in place to avoid this type of action.
To attempt to trivialize or worse, dismiss these actions as harmless except to the terrorists is to miss the fundamental concept on which our Republic is based.
This action should be creating a firestorm of criticism and debate from the citizenry. If former President Clinton's blowjob from an intern can aspire calls for impeachment, then so should this.
So, either Echelon doesn't exist or it's equally as illegal?
Oh, and the English monarchs hadn't ruled with unchecked authority since the English Civil War, but that's really just a semantic point, I suppose.
As a non-American, I’ve long been a passionate supporter of the US. America was the Muhammad Ali of the world’s nations to me – big and brash and free-spirited and smart and, yes, probably the greatest too. I’ve defended the US against the uninformed whingeing and whining of so many non-Americans that I should be awarded honorary citizenship, or at least a laminated copy of the Constitution signed by our gracious Dead Things host. My admiration of the US hasn't been blind. Of course it isn’t perfect (perfection exists only in fantasies and usually involves Rachel Weiss feeding Kristen Kreuk grapes, while Michael Chiklis beats Tiny Tom Cruise upside the head with a 1st edition copy of Battlefield Earth). America hasn’t always thought with its head, but it’s always, always thought with its heart. Until now. Now, I battle to stand up for a country that once gave me so much hope. Now I sit in sadness watching what that moron you call a president continues to do. I just don’t understand it. I don’t understand how such a stupid, evil, moronic fucktard can run the greatest country in the world. I don’t understand how the people of America (granted, by a negligible and disputed majority) voted him in… twice. And I despair, mainly, because while presidents come and go, the people of America have in the past always been steadfast and honest and reasonable… but now, now they’ve lost the plot so badly, it’s like America’s jumped the shark. The rabid conservatism and apologistic neo-fascism that’s chewing up the US constitution terrifies me and I wonder if the greatest country will ever again truly be the land of the free and brave. As a screenwriter, I’ve always dreamt about making it in the US. Now, I think I’d rather stay right where I am. The US of today – I don’t think I’d like to raise my children in. The honesty has gone, the justice. To me, America is like the Muhammad Ali of today… a once great entity reduced to a shaky, shuddery shadow of its past. But while Mr Ali maintains an astounding dignity, America doesn’t. Please, please, please American citizens, get back your dignity, become the beacon of hope and honour and freedom you’ve been for so long. Become the greatest again, because the world needs you now more than ever. Okay, rant over. The end.
Dear African Den,
Bush the Junior is just absolute proof that 'anyone' can become President. We had hoped that that meant that a poor but competent black, hispanic etc... could aspire to the job but instead we proved that a privileged white doofus could get it. We really need to be more specific in our aspirations.
Oh, and the English monarchs hadn't ruled with unchecked authority since the English Civil War, but that's really just a semantic point, I suppose.
You're showing your Canadian/Britisher bonafides. It's not a semantic point -- it's a perfect illustration of history being about who writes it.
From an American perspective, the King had, and demanded, unchecked power. British historians tend to downplay this enormously. But I'm writing from an American perspective.
Most of history is like this: especially Canadian history, where the French and English narratives don't even line up.
Often you can tell a lot about what's important to people by what things are called. When I was a kid I found myself confused for a while about "The Seven Years War" because I didn't see where it fit. Then I realized that in Canadian history, it was the same conflict I knew as "The French and Indian War."
The other humorous example of this is "The War of 1812" or as I like to call it, "The War Nobody Lost."
But just try to tell a Canadian they didn't "win" the war of 1812...or an American...or...
Post a Comment