|
Conservatives Endorse the Fuhrer Principle
I hate to call these idiots conservatives, but that is the title of the article and this is what CPAC'ers call themselves. 
To clarify the title below, the german words translated reads:
Conservatives Endorse the Leader Principle
Our leader over all
Quote:
Conservatives Endorse the Fuhrer Principle
Our leader über alles
by Paul Craig Roberts
February 17, 2006
Last week's annual Conservative Political Action Conference signaled the transformation of American conservatism into brownshirtism. A former Justice Department official named Viet Dinh got a standing ovation when he told the CPAC audience that the rule of law mustn't get in the way of President Bush protecting Americans from Osama bin Laden.
Former Republican congressman Bob Barr, who led the House impeachment of President Bill Clinton, reminded the CPAC audience that our first loyalty is to the U.S. Constitution, not to a leader. The question, Barr said, is not one of disloyalty to Bush, but whether America "will remain a nation subject to, and governed by, the rule of law or the whim of men."
The CPAC audience answered that they preferred to be governed by Bush. According to Dana Milbank, a member of the CPAC audience named Richard Sorcinelli loudly booed Barr, declaring: "I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say Bush is off course trying to defend the United States." A woman in the audience told Barr that the Constitution placed Bush above the law and above non-elected federal judges.
These statements gallop beyond the merely partisan. They express the sentiments of brownshirtism. Our leader über alles.
Only a few years ago this same group saw Barr as a conservative hero for obtaining Clinton's impeachment in the House. Obviously, CPAC's praise for Barr did not derive from Barr's stand on conservative principle that a president must be held accountable if he violates the law. In Clinton's case, Barr's principles did not conflict with the blind emotions of the politically partisan conservatives demanding Clinton's impeachment.
In opposing Bush's illegal behavior, Barr is simply being consistent. But this time, Barr's principles are at odds with the emotions of the politically partisan CPAC audience. Rushing to the defense of Bush, the CPAC audience endorsed Viet Dinh's Fuhrer Principle over the rule of law.
Why do the media and the public allow partisan political hacks, like Viet Dinh, to define Bush's illegal actions as a national security issue? The purpose of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is to protect national security. FISA creates a secret court to which the president can apply for a warrant even after he has initiated spying. Complying with the law in no way handicaps spying for national security purposes. The only spying handicapped by the warrant requirement is spying for illegitimate purposes, such as spying on political opponents.
There are only two reasons for Bush to refuse to obey the law. One is that he is guilty of illegitimate spying for which no warrant would be issued by the FISA court. The other is that he is using "national security" to create unconstitutional powers for the executive.
Civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate writing in the Boston Phoenix says that Bush's grab for "sweeping, unchecked power in direct violation of a statute would open a Pandora's box of imperial possibilities." In short, it makes the president a dictator.
For years, the Republican Federalist Society has been agitating for concentrating more power in the executive. The members will say that they do not favor a dictator, just a check on the "imperial Congress" and "imperial judiciary." But they have not spelled out how the president can be higher than law and still be accountable, or, if he is only to be higher than some laws, but not other laws, and only in some circumstances, but not all circumstances, who draws the line through the law and defines the circumstances.
On Feb. 13, the American Bar Association passed a resolution belatedly asking President Bush to stop violating the law. "We cannot allow the U.S. Constitution and our rights to become a victim of terrorism," said bar association president Michael Grecco.
The siren call of "national security" is all the cover Bush needs to have the FISA law repealed, thus legally gaining the power to spy however he chooses, the protection of political opponents be damned. However, Bush and his Federalist Society Justice Department are not interested in having the law repealed. Their purpose has nothing to do with national security. The point on which the regime is insisting is that there are circumstances (undefined) in which the president does not have to obey laws. What those circumstances and laws are is for the regime to decide.
The Bush regime is asserting the Fuhrer Principle, and Americans are buying it, even as Bush declares that America is at war in order to bring democracy to the Middle East.
|
Here's the article with a 'toned-down' title: http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts149.html
And here's an interesting response/counter from Viet Dinh and the author:
Quote:
Viet Dinh's Letter
Dear Mr. Roberts,
I write as a bewildered fan. A fan because I truly admire your past service to our nation as a government official and your past contributions to our intellectual culture. Bewildered because your recent posting on LewRockwell.com compares America’s defense against terrorism to Nazi Germany and because, even more inexplicably, your opinion appears to be based on total fiction.
I woke up this last Saturday to the following message on my email:"Last week's annual Conservative Political Action Conference signaled the transformation of American conservatism into brownshirtism. A former Justice Department official named Viet Dinh got a standing ovation when he told the CPAC audience that the rule of law mustn't get in the way of President Bush protecting Americans from Osama bin Laden" Paul Craig Roberts
If you are so enamored with totalitarianism, maybe you ought to return to your ancestral home.
I resisted the temptation to dismiss the message as another bigoted attack and asked for a source citation to what I assumed to be a made-up quotation. No reply. So I researched and to my surprise discovered that the cowardly email had indeed quoted your post on LewRockwell.com.
As it is obvious that you are writing without any first-hand knowledge of the facts, let me be very clear about what was said and what was not said. I did not, nor did anyone at CPAC to my knowledge, say that "the rule of law mustn't get in the way of President Bush protecting Americans from Osama bin Laden." Nor was there any standing ovation. I would have thought, before your post, that an accusation against an individual, an entire audience, and indeed a nation’s anti-terror strategy of being akin to Nazism would require a bit more responsibility to the facts.
Assuming some fealty to the truth remains, let me recount what I said during my debate with Bob Barr at CPAC. I acknowledged that conservatism derives from a tradition of healthy skepticism of governmental power. However, I said, "At times that healthy skepticism must unfortunately yield to a greater threat to our national security." I posit that the question is not whether the President is above the law but rather whether anyone, including Congress, is above the Constitution, and specifically noted that "no one without operational knowledge of the details of the NSA program can come to a definitive conclusion as to its propriety or legality."
Finally, I concluded, "At this time, the greatest threat to American liberty comes from al Qaeda and its associates who would seek to destroy this nation, not from the brave men and women who defend America and her people."
If you disagree with any of the above points, I would love to engage you in a conversation. If you were there and differ in your recollection, I would ask to see your notes or better, that you check your facts with Bob Barr. If you were not at CPAC and did not observe that which you purported to describe, I hope you will come clean.
But nothing – nothing, sir – justifies your spurious accusation of "brownshirtism" against anyone, least of all against one who has suffered the tyranny of totalitarianism.
Thank you.
Viet D. Dinh
Paul Craig Roberts's Response
I stand by my characterization of Viet Dinh’s remarks in his debate with Bob Barr at the recent CPAC annual meeting and by my statement that conservatism has morphed into brownshirtism.
Viet Dinh is one of the authors of the so-called "PATRIOT Act," an anti-American piece of legislation recognized throughout the civil libertarian community as an assault on American civil liberties. Former Republican congressman Bob Barr has fought to restrain the act’s more egregious intrusions into the constitutionally protected privacy of American citizens.
Even Republican US senators, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, are concerned about the Bush regime’s proclivity for warrantless spying in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Senator Specter is drafting legislation with which he hopes to curtail President Bush’s illegal activity. As far as I can tell, the legal community recognizes that Bush’s warrantless spying is illegal, except for members of the Republican Federalist Society, a group of lawyers dedicated to concentrating unaccountable powers in the executive.
There are several news reports on the CPAC conference and the debate between Bob Barr and Viet Dinh. My observations follow from these news reports.
Writing in the Washington Post on February 11, "Bob Barr, Bane of the Right?," Post reporter Dana Milbank, for example, reports that Barr asked the CPAC audience, "Are we losing our lodestar, which is the Bill of Rights" to the Bush regime’s zeal in its war against terror?
Barr confronted the conservatives: "Do we truly remain a society that believes that every president must abide by the law of this country" or "are we in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle?"
Barr’s questions were greeted with silence followed by booing. According to Milbank, "Dinh brought the crowd to a raucous ovation when he judged: ‘The threat to Americans’ liberty today comes from al Qaeda and its associates and the people who would destroy America and her people, not the brave men and women who work to defend this country!’"
How else are we to interpret Viet Dinh’s words? Clearly, he is saying that it is more important for Bush to seize powers to protect America from Osama bin Laden than to obey the law and abide by the separation of powers. The entire position of the Bush regime is that protecting the country from terrorists is more important than loyalty to habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions, the proscription against torture, open government, and an accountable executive.
Dinh himself endorsed the Führer Principle and urged it upon the conservatives when he declared, "The conservative movement has a healthy skepticism of governmental power, but at times, unfortunately, that healthy skepticism needs to yield." Yield to what? To the Leader who works "to defend this country."
That’s exactly what Hitler said following the Reichstag fire, a staged incident that he used to remove himself from accountability.
Milbank notes that by turning the debate into the issue of who do you fear – George Bush or Osama bin Laden, Viet Dinh employed "the sort of tactic that has intimidated Democrats and the last few libertarian Republicans who question the program’s legality."
Milbank reports that Viet Dinh’s tactic did not work on Bob Barr who nailed Dinh: "That, folks, was a red herring. This debate is very simple: It is a debate about whether or not we will remain a nation subject to and governed by the rule of law or the whim of men."
In fairness to Viet Dinh, coming as he does as an immigrant from a country without a constitutional tradition, without a Bill of Rights, and without a judiciary empowered to enforce civil liberties, Dinh may only naturally confuse patriotism with loyalty to leader. Trust the Leader, Dinh told the conservatives. They seemed to agree. This certainly is not America’s way.
Destroying America does not mean blowing up buildings. It means destroying the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers. Al Qaeda is powerless to bring about such destruction. Only our own government, enabled by the public’s and Viet Dinh’s and Attorney General Gonzales’ endorsements of the Führer Principle can destroy America.
February 23, 2006
Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts150.html
So what is it? Rule of law, or rule of one?
__________________
2002_Nissan_Maxima_6-speed
|
Show Printable Version | 
Subscribe to this Thread
02-26-2006, 06:07 PM
