Sunday, April 15, 2007

Doesn't the rule of law mean anything anymore?

* kleiman:
"(Tom) Maguire is a kind of litmus test. If there's anything plausible, or even nearly plausible, to be said in defense of Republicans, Maguire will say it. But when the situation is completely, utterly, obviously hopeless, he'll admit it. In the stopped-clock crowd he runs with, that makes him a beacon of intellectual honesty. Other Red bloggers, please copy."

* kleiman:
"Bush and Cheney are tough on their toys. More than half of the West Point class of 2000 has left active duty. And that's despite "stop-loss" and a new policy that promises graduate school and a choice of home base to any West Point grad who extends three years past his original five-year commitment.

We're going to be cleaning up the BushCheney mess for the rest of our lives. I hope Justice Scalia is happy.

* kleiman on hicks:
"If "providing material support to terrorism" is a crime with retrospective application, can we go back and try the folks in the Reagan Administration who supported the terrorists of UNITA and the Contras? Or the folks in the Carter Administration who supported (as I thought was a good idea at the time) terrorist actions by the mujaheddin in Afghanistan? Or Pat Robertson for palling arround with terrorist governments in Central Africa? Doesn't the rule of law mean anything anymore?"

1 comment:

profmarcus said...

i clicked on this post because i was snagged by the title... in terms of abiding by the "rule of law," at least in the international arena, the u.s. has been a consistent violator for a long time... whatever "rule of law" MIGHT have meant at one time in the u.s. (and, quite honestly, u.s. respect for and practice of the rule of law has been in steady decline since nuremburg), or COULD and SHOULD mean, the u.s. is an embarrassment to itself, and just about everybody in the world knows it, except, of course, for the majority of u.s. citizens...