King George shows his true colors...again
Jul. 2nd, 2006 02:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jaunthieOne of the things that has long puzzled me about the American political scene is the continuing popular myth of George W. Bush as a "nice guy", a decent, ordingary sort of bloke you could sit right down and have a beer with. The truth is nothing of the sort, as has been amply demonstrated both by his history (he's a son of affluence and privilege, led an extremely sheltered life, and has retained all the morals of his frat-boy days even in his born-againness) and by current events. Latest example: The military attorney who successfully brought the tribunal challenge to the Supreme Court will likely lose his career for it. It is a classic example of the pettiness of the President and the cronyism of those who surround him, to effectively fire the individual who embarrased him by doing his job.
In reality, of course, Lieutenant Commander Swift will undoubtedly go on to earn a much bigger paycheck for a private law firm than he ever earned in the military. But that doesn't undo the damage done to our nation, both by demonstrating yet again what happens to those who stand up to tyranny to defend our Constitution and our national ideals, and by costing us yet another honorable, competent man in the service and uniform of our country. We need more people like Swift in uniform and in service (civilian or military), not fewer. And we desperately need to encourage as many people as possible to stand up for what's right, to do their jobs and follow an ethical course of behavior.
Of course, this administration isn't interested in setting positive moral examples. They argue that the end justifies the means in everything from the "war on terror" to keeping their majority in Congress. But I would argue, strenuously, that the end - any end - cannot justify the means when that means is tyranny.
This country was founded explictly as a response and rejection to tyranny. Our fundamental founding principles have always been rooted in the rule of law and the equality of all peoples under that law. And our greatest advantage in two world wars and in the Cold War was that steadfast adherence to the rule of law, and the global recognition (and admiration) in response to it. America was the land of opportunity, yes - and the land of freedom and justice. Yes, we've had our failings in adhering to it (the Japanese internment camps in WWII, the Un-American Activities Committee's activities), but we've usually managed to correct ourselves because the country itself has recognized the ultimate advantage and importance of continuing to be a country by and for the people - all of them, all playing by the same rules.
Now we have a President and an administration that argue that we should surrender the rule of law in the interests of "national security". I say that our national security has never been more threatened than when our own leaders attack and disregard the very laws they were sworn to uphold and the very fundamental principles upon which this country was founded. And while it's people like Swift who pay the most visible price of their tyranny, we all are paying the cost.
In reality, of course, Lieutenant Commander Swift will undoubtedly go on to earn a much bigger paycheck for a private law firm than he ever earned in the military. But that doesn't undo the damage done to our nation, both by demonstrating yet again what happens to those who stand up to tyranny to defend our Constitution and our national ideals, and by costing us yet another honorable, competent man in the service and uniform of our country. We need more people like Swift in uniform and in service (civilian or military), not fewer. And we desperately need to encourage as many people as possible to stand up for what's right, to do their jobs and follow an ethical course of behavior.
Of course, this administration isn't interested in setting positive moral examples. They argue that the end justifies the means in everything from the "war on terror" to keeping their majority in Congress. But I would argue, strenuously, that the end - any end - cannot justify the means when that means is tyranny.
This country was founded explictly as a response and rejection to tyranny. Our fundamental founding principles have always been rooted in the rule of law and the equality of all peoples under that law. And our greatest advantage in two world wars and in the Cold War was that steadfast adherence to the rule of law, and the global recognition (and admiration) in response to it. America was the land of opportunity, yes - and the land of freedom and justice. Yes, we've had our failings in adhering to it (the Japanese internment camps in WWII, the Un-American Activities Committee's activities), but we've usually managed to correct ourselves because the country itself has recognized the ultimate advantage and importance of continuing to be a country by and for the people - all of them, all playing by the same rules.
Now we have a President and an administration that argue that we should surrender the rule of law in the interests of "national security". I say that our national security has never been more threatened than when our own leaders attack and disregard the very laws they were sworn to uphold and the very fundamental principles upon which this country was founded. And while it's people like Swift who pay the most visible price of their tyranny, we all are paying the cost.
