<-"The Woods Are Lovely, Dark and Deep, But I Have Promises to Keep and Miles to go Before I Sleep" |Main|On the Eve of a Trip Across the Country->

Fuck Yeah!

August 17, 2006 3:07 PM

o, in the Star Wars movies, the Emporer uses a classic ploy to gain power. First, as Darth Sidious, he arranges a blockade and then attack of the planet Naboo. As Senator Palpatine, he then convinces the ruler of that planet, the naive Queen Amidala, then only 14 years old, to call for a vote of no confidence in the current Supreme Chancellor, Vallorum. With the leader thus deposed, Palpatine plays on the sympathies of the Senate and is elected to the post of Supreme Chancellor.

Then, he secretly orders a clone army that will be unquestioningly loyal to him. As Darth Sidious, through his new apprentice, Count Dooku, Palpatine orchestrates the Separatist Movement. It is the stated goal of the Separatist Movement to secede from the Republic. With a civil war close at hand, Supreme Chancellor Palpatine declares a state of emergency. The witless Jar Jar Binks, manipulated by Palpatine, then calls for a vote to give the Chancellor emergency powers. Palpatine, pretending to be regretful and humble, accepts these powers and vows to give them up as soon as the Separatists are defeated.

Eventually, Palpatine issues Order 66, an order preprogrammed into the clones' minds. They immediately turn on their Jedi generals, slaughtering all but the most cunning of the Jedi. Palpatine announces that the Jedi have attempted to overthrow the Republic, that he has saved the Republic from the Jedi, and that he will continue to do so - but as Emporer, instead of Supreme Chancellor. The Empire has begun, the dark times that Obi-Wan Kenobi told Luke Skywalker about have started.

George Lucas no doubt looked to several historical figures when he wrote about Palpatine's rise to power, most notably Adolf Hitler.

So, what's the point? Merely that in history, as in fiction, leaders will play on the fears of the people in order to increase their own power. It may be the case that the leader's motivation is, initially, a genuine interest in protecting the nation's people. But, as we all know, power corrupts.

The reason for this recitation of Star Wars history is that we find ourselves in a situation that is similar in some ways to the situation Palpatine created - although I do not believe that George W. Bush created terrorists, orchestrated September 11th, or otherwise directly contributed the the state of affairs with which we are now faced. However, several essential elements are there. First, we have an enemy that is ill-defined. Anyone, we are told, could be a terrorist. Second, this threat is being used to justify an extension of the sovereign's power. It is, of course, essential that the enemy may be among us.

One of the most glaring examples of this abuse-of-power-justified-by-a-new-threat is the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. Because of the threat of terrorists, the Bush administration claimed that it had the authority, despite the Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment, to evesdrop on private international telephone conversations made by American citizens. The only necessary justification, apparently, was that the telephone calls be made by someone suspected of being a terrorist. Of course, the Bush administration is in charge of deciding who's "suspected of being a terrorist," and doesn't feel particularly obligated to justify that classification to anyone.

To be perfectly blunt, this program was one of the most egregious abuses of power I've ever seen. No matter what threat we are facing, we must hold to the principles of the Constitution. That is essential. The Constitution is the essence of what makes America as great as it is - or has the potential to be. To relegate the Constitution to a set of guidelines to be ignored whenever it becomes inconvenient is to insult each and every American citizen, not to mention our Founding Fathers and centuries of tradition and reverence.

So, I was pleased to hear that a federal judge held that the NSA program is unconstitutional. The goverment has vowed to appeal. I guess we'll see what the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and, potentially, the U.S. Supreme Court have to say. But, while I haven't read the Order, I feel confident that the federal judge has made the right decision and I hope that the higher courts will uphold her decision.

Update: You can read the Order here.

Another Update: As tRJ anticipated in the comments, the decision is now being heavily criticized for being light on legal authority and heavy on rhetoric. You can read an article criticizing the decision here (I found it throught Althouse' blog). Regardless of whether the conclusion or the reasoning are upheld on appeal, however, I stand by my assertion that, morally speaking, this program is inexcusable. Legally, I am of the opinion that the program is a violation of the Constitution at the very least, and probably a violation of several statutes. In any event, it represents an attempt by the Executive to wrest power and authority from the other two branches, which is just not cool.



8 Comments


Jorge Montego said:

You watch too many movies.

This order you speak of will be overturned on appeal rather rapidly.

August 17, 2006 4:27 PM



Ismael Tapia II said:

Why do you think that, Mr. Montego? And, more importantly, do you think that's a good thing?

August 17, 2006 4:39 PM



tRJ said:

I think they'll want to overturn it because the order is full of emotional partisan rhetoric. And when they do overturn it, dollars to donuts it's for lack of standing.

As for whether it's a good thing, I don't think the program "obviously violates the Fourth Amendment," as this judge asserts. The argument is there, clearly. But I think the counter-arguments are strong, particularly those relating to border searches and a national security exception.

August 17, 2006 8:43 PM



Ismael Tapia II said:

I agree that the standing issue is a ready-made excuse for a higher court to refuse to get to the substance of the case. But, that issue aside, I just don't think that this program is justifiable.

Assuming for the moment that the program is effective (and we don't know if it is. What we know is that there have been no terrorist attacks on America since the time the program started, but we don't know that that's due to this program to any degree. To claim otherwise is to use specious reasoning akin to that which Lisa Simpson demonstrated to Homer: "This is a rock, and I don't see any tigers around. Therefore, this rock keeps away tigers."), the government has offered no reason why obtaining a warrant would somehow reduce the program's effectiveness. The government claims that it is only listening in on conversations by people who are believed, for good reason, to be terrorists. If this is the case, then certainly they can go before a judge and obtain a warrant. And, if the government does not have enough evidence even for a warrant, then the Constitution demands that the person's right to privacy be respected.

The point of my referring to Star Wars and Palpatine was simply this: our Constitution is worthless if we treat it as if it is merely an inconvenience to be disregarded any time we feel it is getting in the way of some goal. We must respect the Constitution at all times, especially when, as now, it would be easiest to justify an overstepping of constitutional authority.

By the way, tRJ, you double posted your comment, probably because of a glitch this page is undergoing. I'm working on fixing the glitch. In the mean time, I deleted your second comment, assuming that you didn't intend for it to be posted twice.

August 18, 2006 2:16 AM



tRJ said:

Yes, the double-post was a mistake as a result of the glitch.

As for the Constitutional issues, no one is a greater advocate for Fourth Amendment protections than I. And that's why this order irks me so much. The analysis is incredibly elementary, especially when you consider what's at stake. And Judge Taylor's statements about searches and warrants are just plain wrong. A warrant is not always required, because it isn't always realistic to do so. There are considerations.

And that brings me to your point about not knowing how effective the program is. The judge here also does not know whether the program is effective but wastes no time shutting it down. That simply won't fly when this gets reviewed. The evidence that we don't have, as you point out, is precisely the evidence that is needed to fairly decide the case.

August 18, 2006 8:44 AM



Brandywine said:

To think, I was confused a mitnue ago.

July 10, 2011 4:17 AM









Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.