The Prez: Torture and Tapping, Power and Privilege

Power and the Presidency: A PBS interview with Charles Fried and Frederick Schwarz.

Intro
Part 1 of the interview
Part 2 of the interview

Charles Fried served as Solicitor General of the United States under President Reagan from 1985-1988. After Reagan left office, Fried returned to Harvard Law School as a distinguished lecturer. From 1995 until 1999, while teaching constitutional law at Harvard, Charles Fried was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, "the oldest appellate court in continuous existence in the Western Hemisphere."

Frederick (Fritz) A. O. Schwarz, Jr. is the senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School. He had been a partner with the law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore since 1969. Schwarz was the lead counsel for the Church Committee, a Senate committee formed in 1975 in reaction to the Watergate scandal that investigated executive overreach stretching back to the FDR administration, eventually issuing 14 reports over three years.

Everyone should definitely check this interview out when you get a spare moment. It's so nice to hear reasonable people (both conservative and liberal) who have the experience and knowledge to speak intelligently about these issues. And you can read the transcript if you miss something. 

Disclaimer: I do realize it's Bill Moyers, guys (F and T, you know who you are), but Fried was Reagan's boyeeeee! And get this-- I learned so much about secret wire-tapping from him that I have had a total turnaround and am all for it, with the proper Congressional oversight. To deter 'Mission creep.' I love that phrase. That's right. Secret wiretapping: FOR. 

Iraqi Army

Here is a nice view of the Iraqi Army in training. I know I feel good about 'em.



Yes, that's real.

my friend steve is an iraq vet, so when he sends something i look at it. more of what you've seen, but interesting to see it spliced together this way.

3 Quotes

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

- James Madison

My God! The whole country has turned BLUE!

Interesting article

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010827

From the Wall Street Journal. What do you guys think?

Time-out

Justin,

Hold on a freaking second. I'm sorry that you feel that I've insulted you. Let me at the very least try and address the things that have hurt your sensibilities.

First you're upset because I find it hard to take what you say seriously sometimes. Now, I didn't say that I don't taking you seriously.... What I meant was that the integrity of your comments (in my own mind) are in jeopardy because you offer up a great deal of criticism, but not much in the way of alternatives. For example, how should we conduct interrogations? Or what kinds of policies do you want to see from a future administration in regards to interrogations (or rendition, or wiretapping)?

Now I don't know why you care so much about my opinions, but maybe I shouldn't have used that phrase. I wouldn't have done so if I knew it was going to cause this result. And I am sorry.

You also said I insulted you because I claimed you are political and because you blame Bush for everything. I don't think that it is a stretch to say that you engage in political conversations with me, Rachel, and others. In doing so you invoke common political themes in some cases, and in others you create your own political stances. So in my mind you are being political, and that is not a negative thing. In fact I admire people who understand not only the issue, but also the politics that revolves around the issue.

Now you also use examples of people who use politics to advance themselves or their party or the people they represent. If you use a person's comments to make a point and I suggest that that same person's comments were used to advance themselves politically then I don't understand why you have to get mad at me. Just argue your point.

Now you said this: "since it seems to be beyond your ability to process as a list of obviously fucked up examples of things that ARE DIRECTLY HIS FAULT"

You then went on to list 7 things, which I assumed you meant were 'directly his (Bush's) fault". Maybe you don't blame everything on Bush, but in that list you included the melting of the ice among others. So I assumed that you were blaming the melting Artic ice on Bush because you said it was "directly his fault." And I responded accordingly.

---

Now let me show you some of your recent comments directed at me:

"since it seems to be beyond your ability to process..."

"maybe you can keep up..."

"Do you think before you write that kind of crap?"

These all could be considered insulting. I guessing that you think that I am stupid or slow. But that's OK, I didn't take offense. I understand when you get upset you like to go on about these things. However I do find it amusing that you have issue with me as being insulting.

---

Why do you get so upset when I use a historical reference? It's not like what I'm saying isn't relevant to the conversation. And if you don't like the reference then I'm not opposed to you forcing me to defend it. But, getting angry just because I mention something historical? Me doing so is not meant to point out something you don't know, it's just meant to add to the conversation. If you don't want me to make historical references in the future then I'll stop. But I really don't see why it's a problem.

T