The Moral Crossroads
Robert Rouse
December 20, 2005
I’m continually amazed and amused by the chutzpah of George W. Bush’s supporters. The President has admitted to authorizing wiretaps without a warrant and yet his supporters are jumping all over the people who simply ask that the letter of the law be observed. It seems as if every time something like this happens, I have to ask the question, “Is this what we as a nation have become?”
Many people may not realize it, but we are on the brink of an ideological civil war in the United States. On one side, we have people who are willing to support a President who believes any means, legal or not, should be used to further his agenda. On the other side, there are those of us who want to preserve our civil liberties and uphold the laws of the land. A fellow Kentuckian and one of the greatest legal minds ever, former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “Men feared witches and burnt women.”
What did he mean by that statement? I believe he is telling us that the end does not justify the means. Brandeis also said, “Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy . . . To declare that the end justifies the means, to declare that the government may commit crimes, would bring terrible retribution.”
Does the end justify the means? Was the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent justified? Of course not - the laws of the land are in effect to protect our citizens, not to spy on them. George W. Bush is setting a poor example for the rest of us and good citizens would be ill advised to follow his example.
Let’s face it, the phrase “United we stand, divided we fall” hasn’t been this relevant since the Lincoln administration. And therein lies the dilemma. I’m unwilling to follow those who would break the law in the name of freedom. The people who are supporting the president’s decision to violate the law are the very same people who were calling for the impeachment of Bill Clinton because he lied about Monica Lewinsky. You tell me – if it was okay to bring Clinton up for impeachment, why is it wrong to ask for the same treatment for a man who has violated the law and admitted it.
Today, California Senator Barbara Boxer wrote a letter to four presidential scholars. Here is the text of her letter:
On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.
On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon's counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.
This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.
Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean's statement.
Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
Georgia Congressman John Lewis is also calling for impeachment proceedings if Bush broke the law by authorizing the wiretaps. He said, “It’s a very serious charge, but he violated the law. The president should abide by the law. He deliberately, systematically violated the law. He is not King, he is president.
Without calling for impeachment, West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd is also concerned about Bush’s actions. Yesterday on his web site, he wrote in part:
Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of power by an overzealous President. It has become apparent that this Administration has engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our Country's law-abiding citizens, and against our Constitution.”
He concluded his statement with the following:
"The practice of domestic spying on citizens should halt immediately. Oversight hearings need to be conducted. Judicial action may be in order. We need to finally be given answers to our questions: where is the constitutional and statutory authority for spying on American citizens, what is the content of these classified legal opinions asserting there is a legality in this criminal usurpation of rights, who is responsible for this dangerous and unconstitutional policy, and how many American citizens' lives have been unknowingly affected?"
We in this country are at the moral crossroads - do we sell our soul to the devil for protection against terrorists, or do we take the high road and find more effective and legal means to protect the citizens of this great nation? I believe you know where I stand. Am I or any of the millions of others who speak out against this corrupt administration being unpatriotic? No, we are the true patriots. Bush and his supporters may try to dismiss those of us who speak against him as being unpatriotic, but during the Nuremberg trials, Hermann Goering told how Hitler was able to get people to do the wrong thing without remorse. He said, "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
Many people may not realize it, but we are on the brink of an ideological civil war in the United States. On one side, we have people who are willing to support a President who believes any means, legal or not, should be used to further his agenda. On the other side, there are those of us who want to preserve our civil liberties and uphold the laws of the land. A fellow Kentuckian and one of the greatest legal minds ever, former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “Men feared witches and burnt women.”
What did he mean by that statement? I believe he is telling us that the end does not justify the means. Brandeis also said, “Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy . . . To declare that the end justifies the means, to declare that the government may commit crimes, would bring terrible retribution.”
Does the end justify the means? Was the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent justified? Of course not - the laws of the land are in effect to protect our citizens, not to spy on them. George W. Bush is setting a poor example for the rest of us and good citizens would be ill advised to follow his example.
Let’s face it, the phrase “United we stand, divided we fall” hasn’t been this relevant since the Lincoln administration. And therein lies the dilemma. I’m unwilling to follow those who would break the law in the name of freedom. The people who are supporting the president’s decision to violate the law are the very same people who were calling for the impeachment of Bill Clinton because he lied about Monica Lewinsky. You tell me – if it was okay to bring Clinton up for impeachment, why is it wrong to ask for the same treatment for a man who has violated the law and admitted it.
Today, California Senator Barbara Boxer wrote a letter to four presidential scholars. Here is the text of her letter:
On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.
On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon's counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.
This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.
Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean's statement.
Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
Georgia Congressman John Lewis is also calling for impeachment proceedings if Bush broke the law by authorizing the wiretaps. He said, “It’s a very serious charge, but he violated the law. The president should abide by the law. He deliberately, systematically violated the law. He is not King, he is president.
Without calling for impeachment, West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd is also concerned about Bush’s actions. Yesterday on his web site, he wrote in part:
Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of power by an overzealous President. It has become apparent that this Administration has engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our Country's law-abiding citizens, and against our Constitution.”
He concluded his statement with the following:
"The practice of domestic spying on citizens should halt immediately. Oversight hearings need to be conducted. Judicial action may be in order. We need to finally be given answers to our questions: where is the constitutional and statutory authority for spying on American citizens, what is the content of these classified legal opinions asserting there is a legality in this criminal usurpation of rights, who is responsible for this dangerous and unconstitutional policy, and how many American citizens' lives have been unknowingly affected?"
We in this country are at the moral crossroads - do we sell our soul to the devil for protection against terrorists, or do we take the high road and find more effective and legal means to protect the citizens of this great nation? I believe you know where I stand. Am I or any of the millions of others who speak out against this corrupt administration being unpatriotic? No, we are the true patriots. Bush and his supporters may try to dismiss those of us who speak against him as being unpatriotic, but during the Nuremberg trials, Hermann Goering told how Hitler was able to get people to do the wrong thing without remorse. He said, "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
Print
Email
