The Outlaw Administration (Oh, and Hello!)

I know. The 2nd to the last thing the internet needs is another political blog. And the last thing it needs is another partisan hack political blog. I promise to be none of the latter, and only some of the former. There are a great many topics that interest me, beyond simply the current political stories of the day. Unfortunately, I feel compelled to start with current events, because I believe we live in dangerous times.

We, in the United States, live under an outlaw administration. I don't mean cool outlaws like Willie and Waylon. I mean a runaway executive that believes it is above and beyond the law. This is NOT partisan hackery--remember my first promise. I'm not even a Democrat (certainly no Republican, either, more on this in the future). I support this observation with facts. This administration has:

1. Asserted a right to indefinitely detain both foreign nationals and American citizens, purely on its own authority, admitting no form of judicial oversight.
2. Tacitly permitted and endorsed torture by the U.S. government and/or its agents. Alternatively, it has rendered individuals for torture by foreign governments or their agents.
3. Authorized the National Security Agency to spy within the borders of the United States, in clear contravention of its legal authority.

Item #3, domestic spying, is the latest source of controversy. Only I see no reason for controversy. Oh what grounds is this defensible? The standard refrain from this administration, repeated ad naseum since September 2001, is that [insert Bill of Rights abrogation here] is necessary for security. This is NOT about security, it is about oversight, accountability, and checks and balances. If there are terrorists (or terror suspects, based on probable cause) then of course all reasonable people believe the government should be able to spy on them. Even the most libertarian among us concede that law enforcement and defense are legitimate functions of government. The point is that there are established legal mechanisms (there are FISA warrants, for example) by which the government can eavesdrop. This administration just couldn't be bothered, it preferred to invent new and "improved" executive authority out of thin air.

Let's see, here's how the "checks and balances" worked: the Justice Department reviewed and supervised the policy and procedures of the NSA. The NSA reports to the president, and the Justice Department reports to... the president. If the executive branch can adequately supervise itself, then why not just get rid of the judicial and legislative branches altogether? That should really speed things up! Thank goodness the Bush administration has the vision that the framers of the constitution lacked.

You see, the framers were all hung up on their recent English history, where the infamous Star Chamber had become a secretive, unsupervised institution of raw, unchecked executive power. Of course, things are very different today, we have the Bush administration's assurances that anyone they lock up is unambiguously a bad guy, we can take their word for it. It's not as though they would lock someone up for years, refuse to give them a trial, and ultimately release them for lack of evidence. What a relief.

The administration is trying to change the subject, invert (and subvert) the story by casting this as a matter of leaked secrets. Purely as a political tactic, this makes sense, this is a classic case of "the best defense is a good offense." But for those who care about democracy and transparency in government, don't stand for this! I challenge everyone to look beyond any narrow partisan concerns and stand up for principle. You can call me a pinko commie terrorist sympathizer all you want. Just uphold the rule of law, and I'll be happy. Relatively.

Repeat: In the future, I promise not to dwell excessively on the politics of the day, but this stuff is important! I hope you'll come back.

Happy New Year!