Michael Kinsley On the Constitution: The Name Is Kafka...Franz Kafka

[kpete]

The Name Is Kafka . . . Franz Kafka

By Michael Kinsley
Friday, June 16, 2006; Page A25

.....................

It's true that you and I are not being grabbed on the streets and sent to a former secret police torture-training camp in Godforsakistan. Nor is the government eavesdropping on your international phone calls or mine. Probably. Because I like you, I'll forgo the usual ominous warning about how they came after him and then they came after her and then they came after you. I'll even skip the liberal sermonette about how even bad guys have rights.

But your rights and mine are not supposed to be at the whim of the government, let alone the president. They are based in the Constitution and the willingness of those we put in power to obey it -- even as interpreted by judges they may disagree with. The most distressing aspect of this story is the apparent attitude of our current rulers that the Constitution is an obstacle to be overcome -- by conducting dirty business abroad or by wildly disingenuous interpretations of laws and the Constitution.

Just look at what these supposed worshipers at the shrine of "strict constructionism" and "original meaning" have done to the 2001 anti-terrorism resolution. Did any senator who voted for this resolution have any idea that he or she was, in essence, voting to repeal all the protections for individuals against government agency abuse that Congress enacted in 1978?

The fact that there are countries in this world where the government can torture people in secret and without fear of courts is supposed to be a tragedy -- not a convenience.


more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061501795.html

[BrklynLiberal]

1. I am sure everyone at Gitmo would agree 100%. That is those we know

about. I cannot imagine what must be going thru the minds of those who are being held that we know nothing about.

[kpete]

5. Kafka-esque...

[pat_k]

2. Why is the word "Impeach" conspicuously absent?

[me b zola]

3. "strict constructionism" and "original meaning"

Ah yes. Back when women & non-white men were property and not allowed to own property or vote. Silly me, I get stuck on these little things whenever I hear rethuglicans utter those phrases.

Appearently *WE* are now one of those countries in the world where the government can torture people in secret without fear of courts. Just ask king george, he'll tell you....well, kind of.


It's good to hear from Micheal Kinsley, where has he been?

[nealmhughes]

4. People become strict constructionists when it suits them and more flexible

when the alternative does. Look at Jefferson with the LA purchase, for example.