What is Bush Logic?
Nice post on The Board, the New York Times' editorial blog, about Bush's reference to immunity. From the post:
It was hardly his only moment of illogic, even on the subject of telecom immunity. He began his discussion of anti-terrorism tactics by saying “we will continue to take every lawful and effective measure to protect the country.” As bloggers, and others, were quick to point out, if the nation is taking only “lawful” steps, why exactly is there such a need to enact a law giving immunity?
Thanks NYT!
I haven't followed the news from Congress today, but the good news from yesterday was that the Senate is continuing to debate, rather than settle on their immunity version.
And by the way, the immunity provision is just one bad part of a generally bad law, which is why Congress should take the necessary time to properly debate it, before making it permanent. If you want to spy on Americans, please provide for judicial oversight. Does anyone want to live in a country where the Executive Branch can invade anyone's privacy without independent oversight? The brilliance of how our Constitution was designed is that it provides for checks and balances and separation of powers. (Remember that 8th grade civics class?) This is a Good Thing (tm), for many reasons including because it's supposed to prevent over-enthusiastic well-intentioned people in government (with guns) from (maybe inadvertently) treating their fellow citizens badly.
