<p>Editorial from the New York Times Today…
Is the president above the law and will the confirmation of Alito make that permanent…Implications for the future</p>
<p>The Imperial Presidency at Work </p>
<p>Published: January 15, 2006
You would think that Senators Carl Levin and John McCain would have learned by now that you cannot deal in good faith with a White House that does not act in good faith. Yet both men struck bargains intended to restore the rule of law to American prison camps. And President Bush tossed them aside at the first opportunity.</p>
<p>Mr. Bush made a grand show of inviting Mr. McCain into the Oval Office last month to announce his support for a bill to require humane treatment of detainees at Guant</p>
<p>Since when are editorials supposed to be balanced reporting? It’s an opinion piece.</p>
<p>As far as the reporting in the Times goes, they lost me during the run up to the war. Their reporting stank - basically mouthing only what they heard from the admins with very little questioning, all to gain access.
I consider the NYT a shill for the administration. This editorial is too little too late. File it along with their “apology” for false reporting on WMD, for the lame Valarie Plame reporting, and for their steadfast loyalty to Judy when she defied the court order in the name of protecting sources, among many other supposedly liberal stances. Baloney. The Times parted company with their own soul a long time ago.</p>
<p>"I, and other media lawyers sound almost religious as we chant the First Amendment mantra “Congress shall make no law . . .”.</p>
<p>But the New York Times will not tell us why they held the surveillance scoop story. And the New York Times reporter who wanted the “scoop” to run long before it had, James Risen in his fine book, The State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, does not tell us what went on at the Times as it stopped his story.</p>
<p>Byron Calame, the New York Times Public Citizen, was not in the loop and when he tried to find out what happened, he got thoroughly stonewalled.</p>
<p>Censorship? The Times demands both the right to make the government more accountable and more transparent and the right to keep themselves not transparent and not accountable. Hypocrisy?</p>
<p>It just doesn’t wash. Our hopes for a free vigorous crusading accurate media get daily dashed."</p>
<p>Yes, Socal, but I agree heartily with the opinion, that is why I posted it. Sometimes people’s opinions are stated so well they may change minds.
I can not for the life of me understand why anybody, even conservatives would want the president to have unlimited power and would want someone who discriminated, even if it was 30 years ago. Why any woman or non white male would want Alito and a conservative court beats me. Hey, I can’t even understand why white males would want someone like that either, but maybe it’s just me…</p>
<p>Laura, it would serve you better if you spent less time echoing someone else’s opinions and more time learning the facts before you go out and disparage someone based on falsehoods.</p>
<p>Excuse me, what falsehoods??? He does uphold presidential power and he did join the group and brag about it after graduating Princeton. He would not say that Roe V Wade was settled law. What do YOU think makes any of that not true?? Mind you, i almost never agree with you anyway, and facts can be “slanted”, as Conservatives often do, but it seems that he will change the court in a significant way, and not a good way, by my view. Just because you disagree with me does not make me wrong.</p>
<p>Oh, yeah, and the President has spent most of his presidency lying to us and hiding some very important items and acts he has done. The article seems clear to me. Torture anyone? Hidden prisons, wiretaps with no court orders when they’re easy to get. Those are unlimited presidential powers, making the president above the law. Holding people prisoners outside the law? Alito will back him everytime, to the detriment of what we used to call democracy. That’s why you all want him…because you are so afraid of the world that you’ll give up anything to feel safe. As Arnold would say…you girlie men, Afraid enough to give away the rights you have as citizens to be “safe”. But you’re not, he couldn’t even help New Orleans after a simple hurricane. So giving up your rights for a sense of false security neither makes you safe, nor free.</p>
<p>Ok, first of all, there is no such thing as a “simple hurricane”. That was very ignorant. Second, it’s not like just anybody is going to be wired tapped, and it’s not like it’s for anything. These are people who the government believe have a legit reason to think they might commit an act of terrorism, like craching planes into buildings. If one of your family members was in the twin tower, but they could have tortured somebody to find out about it, would you rather have a terrorist tortured, or a national catastrophe? Tell me how you think he’s above the law, what ammendments? What acts is he violating? Also, have an article from NYT to shape your opinion is just a joke, you are obiouvsly very uneducated.</p>
<p>Bobsagetlot, You just don’t get it, do you. It was a catagory 3 hurricane and the levees weren’t even built to withstand that…and they supposedly were. Brownie had no idea how to handle ANY emergency after, except for maybe a fixing a broken Arabian’s horses leg, or maybe a broken horse’s ass. This is the level of protection that Bush has given us. False security, as I said.
Every phone call and internet out of the country is being screened…including the lady who was saying that her son bombed in a play was listened to. The stupid thing is when they use illegal wiretapping it can not even be used in court as evidence. There is a while system set up to go through a secret court. We need checks and balances in our government.
Oh and I live in NY and knew lots of people in the twin towers who died. The 9/11 commission urged by the families gave many ideas on how to protect our country, most of the ideas are being ignored. Such great protection. We got a note saying “osama will attach US” it was ignored.
You might “HAVE AGED ALOT” but you couldn’t have lived through the Nixon years when laws were put in to protect citizens rights…but I remember it well.
I don’t need an article to shape my opinions…I thought these things before, but he said it oh so well. You must be a Conservative to insult someone’s intelligence, because they do not agree with you.</p>
<p>How is it Bush’s fault the lleves wern’t strong enough? That is a local governemnt issue, it is NOT the presidents job to check every lleve, that was a local government fault. You did not answer my questions that I asked, Laura. Also, stop cursing, it just makes you sound more like the babling idiot you are. In addition, you stero-type me by saying I’m a conservative for insulting somebody’s intelligence. You must be a very, vert ignorant person to say something like that. I really don’t think you have any idea what you are talking about, you are rude and must curse to relay your points, thus you are not worth debating with.</p>
<p>“Bobsagetlot, You just don’t get it, do you. It was a catagory 3 hurricane and the levees weren’t even built to withstand that…and they supposedly were. Brownie had no idea how to handle ANY emergency after, except for maybe a fixing a broken Arabian’s horses leg, or maybe a broken horse’s ass. This is the level of protection that Bush has given us. False security, as I said.”</p>
<p>And you do, Laura? </p>
<p>What do you think Bush could have done BEFORE Katrina? Do you expect any president to reverse hundred years of miscalculations and errors? What did YOUR president do about New Orleans in his 8 years reign? </p>
<p>“I don’t need an article to shape my opinions”</p>
<p>I am afraid that you demonstrated that with flying colors. This would be hilarious if was not so pathetic.</p>
<p>Just for a little excitement I thought that I would move this off of the “dead end” discussion. The Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday is voting whether or not they should recommend that Mr. Alito be confirmed by the full Senate. It looks like he’s going to win in Committee. </p>
<p>CNN/USA Today just released a poll that indicated that only 30% of Americans think that he shouldn’t be confirmed. It’s going to be interesting to watch what the Dems do here because 30% is…well…only 30%. Their big buck donors though are a part of that 30%. So do you alienate the big buck supporters or do you vote more in line with the non-money people? </p>
<p>My bet is on the money people even though McCain/Feingold took the money out of politics.</p>