institutionalized?

As tiresome as it can sometimes be to see people frame matters so that it all comes down to one issue and one issue only, I find myself returning to this one again and again. Whether or not torture is your issue. Or wiretapping. Or indefinite detention. Or signing statements. Or anything, really -- environment, global warming, abortion, health care, taxes, terrorism, the war. No matter what your issue is, at heart, you're dependent on a continuing and consistent respect for the law. Because without it, none of your work on politics and policy is worth anything the moment the White House falls to someone who's not you. You can pass all the environmental laws you like, but if it's accepted as a legitimate tenet of Republican governing philosophy that all of those laws can be safely ignored or otherwise set aside, you'll have gained nothing from your work with a friendly Congress and administration.

And if you can set aside all statutory and constitutional law on something like torture, I'm unsure what barriers you think remain in the way of doing the same on any other issue.

David Waldman

When one listens to O'Reilly, Limbaugh and now Gonzales, speak of the US right to torture, one realises that Rove was not kidding when he sought to portray torture as a "policy difference". That really is the way things are panning out between the two parties. One side says it is illegal and the other side says it is necessary. So, the US has not abandoned the practice of torture, it has simply been put to sleep until the next Republican administration decides whether or not to bring it back.

from Kel, go read the rest.

And now, it seems, Nancy Pelosi, and no doubt other Democrats, knew that torture was going on. Are any of us really surprised? Naturally she's got some lame excuses to let herself off the hook, but it certainly explains the lack of Congressional will when it comes to investigating and holding accountable members of the Bush Administration for their obviously illegal and immoral acts. After all, if members of Congress knew, then that would make them also culpable, and that wont do if some of those members are Democrats currently in charge, will it?

I've said this before, I'll say it again, this is the most important issue facing America right now, putting the economy and the wars to nothing next to it: Are we a Nation of Laws, where rules are applied equally and democratically to all, or are we a nation where those in power operate under different rules than those who have none? It gets right to the heart of what makes America America, rather than, say, China.
Yes, I know, rules are different for those with money and power, but this is supposed to be an effect of corruption rather than policy. If what's legal is defined soley by those individuals with the power to say something is legal or not (such as a king), rather than by a replacable committee of representatives, then what recourse against arbitrary decisions will there ever be for the ordinary person? Once you allow legal precident to institutionalize the illegal acts of those in power, but not for anyone else, then Democracy and the Rule of Law is finished, and legal becomes defined by the whims of those who already held most of the cards anyway. You might as well be living in dictatorship, unless you think America is the Land of the Free because we can all have cable or go to restaurants or buy whatever cool stuff we want*. Personally, I'd prefer smaller houses, cheaper cars, and the satisfaction that breaking laws leads to punishment for all wrongdoers.

I fear, though, that such is not going to be the case. That Republicans, and their Democratic enablers, will not only get away with their illegal acts, but that as soon as Americans feel like their next trip to Starbucks is threatened by some guy in a headscarf on the other side of the planet, then such acts will occur yet again. And they will, sooner or later. And America, the one that I learned of in school, that America will be dead. And the Great Experiment will truly have been an experiment, but a failed one. And I will weep** for my grandchildren.



Some additional thoughts on the Rule of Law:

-an article by Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic.
-an article by Ari Melber at the Nation.
- and finally, another quote:

"Here's where we stand as a nation: Right now, it is more likely that someone or some entity will be punished for the split-second exposure of Janet Jackson's naked titty during the 2004 Super Bowl than for authorizing the torture of detainees at our prison in Guantanamo Bay. It is more likely that someone will get fined for Bono exuberantly broguing the word "fucking" as an adverb during a live awards show than for wrecking the American economy."

read the rest at Rude Pundit.

* Assuming those in power have allowed us enough money to do so, of course.
** metaphorically, of course. In reality I'll be trying to figure out how to get them to move somewhere civilized.