"How Would A Patriot Act?"

"In rejecting monarchy because it was unsafe, republicans had forgotten that it might also be effective ... Much present-day thinking puts civil liberties and the rule of law to the fore and forgets to consider emergencies when liberties are dangerous and law does not apply."

-- Harvey Mansfield, Harvard professor of government, in the Weekly Standard, 1/16/06 (quoted in "How Would A Patriot Act?", pp. 70-1) [Emphasis added]

I've just finished Glenn Greenwald's book, "How Would A Patriot Act?", and I urge everyone who hasn't already to buy it and read it as well. It's a slim volume of 120 or so pages, written in the same cold, clear, yet impassioned style as Greenwald's blog (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com), and covering many of the same points, but in an un-hyperlinked, sequential manner and with plenty of fleshed-out historical examples and other supporting information. (Needless to say, I highly recommend the blog as 'required reading' every day, as it continues to expand and elaborate upon the crisis described in the book.)

The simple subject of the book is the formulation by the Bush administration of a political doctrine that grants extraordinary powers to the executive branch, and that removes the checks and balances between the three branches of government that is intended to regulate the powers of each of them.

At its core, this doctrine is based on two claims: (1) that as a result of the 9/11 attacks we are currently in a state of war, and (2) that in time of war, the Constitution grants the executive branch essentially unlimited powers, unbound by the laws of the country and unchecked by any oversight from the other two branches of government. (The administration also claims that the current state of war will probably not end in any of our lifetimes, but that it differs significantly from the similarly open-ended Cold War in that it is a 'hot' one, thus requiring the leadership of a Commander-in-Chief with unlimited powers.)

Both of these claims are untrue. Greenwald's book explains why.

The Bush administration's pursuit of this doctrine, sometimes referred to as the theory of the unitary executive, represents a 'clear and present danger' to our way of life, and to the fundamental principles underlying the United States and enshrined in the Constitution. Al Qaeda has amply demonstrated its bloodthirsty willingness and ability to murder innocent citizens of America and other countries, and obviously represents a grave threat. But the danger that the fear and shock instilled by those attacks would drive us to fundamentally alter our basic principles of government is also being realized. Warnings of this danger were more frequently expressed in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, when the possibility ofviolations of our constitutional rights seemed more abstract and were not yet known to have occurred.

The book is especially useful for those of you who find it easier or more pleasant to read off of paper rather than a computer monitor, and has the added advantage of portability. Buying the book also supports the ideals expressed within, as well as Working Assets Publishing.

I'll try to summarize some key points and related issues in future posts.