You know, when I read

You know, when I read this article, I instantly think of Nixon. And I wasn’t even old enough to remember anything about him.
Now, just compare these two statements:

  1. Democracy is based on governmental policy developed by rational discourse among a well informed public.
  2. The net result of that [the request for information regarding how the Bush administration formed its energy policy] is to weaken the presidency and the vice presidency…

Now, is it just me, or do those two statements seem irreconcilable? And how do you weaken the vice presidency anyway? It doesn’t even have any powers. It just seems completely arrogant and, well, stupid to take a position like this. Yes, it would mean that the content of those meetings would be disclosed. And normally I would respect the fact that people don’t need to just pry out information for the hell of it. But you’re talking about a massive economic cluster fuck that has cast a pall over the formulation of official government policy. Maybe the minutes and notes don’t need to go public, but if the Congress wants to review them, I don’t see a reasonable means to deny the request. And if Enron (or anyone else, for that matter), had an undue influence in our policy, the public needs to know.

Yes, life must be good

Yes, life must be good as an American. I can only assume that there’s some sort of perverse jealousy at work in the world when people protest our treatment of presumed-terrorists at Camp X-Ray, while totally ignoring the truly heinous injustices in the world. If you can read “the woman would be buried with only her head and chest above ground, so she could not move, and then be stoned to death.” without being appalled, maybe you too could work for someone like Amnesty International trying to help the prisoners at Camp X-Ray. Lord knows I couldn’t.
As a side note: I don’t have hard confirmation on this, but I believe the sharia Islamic rule mentioned in the article is sponsored (politically & monetarily) by our “allies”, the Saudi Arabians. As someone once said, politics is the art of being friends with people you would never invite into your home as an individual.

Military tribunals have not sat

Military tribunals have not sat well with my concience during the whole post-9/11 affair. I think this essay by Robert Levy sums things up nicely. The meat of the conclusion:

Here’s the argument in a nutshell. If the Bill of Rights applies to unlawful combatants in the United States, the Bush military order is unconstitutional. If the law of war is in force, then military tribunals in the United States must be, first, subject to civil judicial review; second, authorized by Congress; and third, limited to prosecuting unlawful combatants. In any event, the order as it now stands is illegitimate, and those of us who say so are not, in the attorney general’s unfortunate and offensive words, “giving ammunition to America’s enemies,” “aiding terrorists,” or “eroding our national unity.” Instead, we are upholding the Constitution; securing the values that sustain a free society; and, at the same time, preserving for the president the option of using military tribunals outside of the United States — where they belong.