More US 'National Security' Legal Arguments Proven Frivolous

Bush Sometimes Supports War Protesters

Curious how the President changes his position on things, demands the opposite, and when you give him what he (doesn't really) want, he complains. He could solve his anger problem and avoid this by resigning.

Ref Calls Iranian (lawful) support for insurgency "bad" and a reason to "invade"; but ignores the DoD support for the (oops!) insurgency "good".

Ref Quite a convenient shift: One day he's calling Congressional debate treason, the next he's using the opposition to the war to twist arms overseas.

Ref How's this for coming full circle: Diplomacy returns as an option, much to Cheney's disgust. Bush will talk to part of the axis of evil, the others: Bush pretends there can be no negotiations. Could work with Iran. Give democracy and discussion a chance, George.

Ref President (disingenuously) asked for more ideas and solutions -- he's got them, but he's still unhappy.

* * *

Wasn't it a few weeks ago when the NYPD got slapped on the wrist of denying people their rights the RNC Demonstrations?

Once the President jumps the line and argues that protests are good, he loses a credible basis to rely on any legal argument he's given to detain American citizens without access to counsel.

Time for him to revisit the no-fly lists: He appears to be using that not as a tool to safeguard travel, but as a weapon to punish dissenters.

I'd like to see legal counsel presenting these phony "national security concern"-arguments reviewed by the state attorney discipline boards. It's a violation of the attorney standards of conduct and procedure to make a frivolous legal argument, especially when the legal argument and government action remains unconnected with a legitimate purpose.

How many of the National Security Letters were issued not because of a bonafide security concern, but as a means to retaliate against citizens asserting their rights, reporting misconduct, or refusing to cooperate with illegal US government behavior?

* * *

Bush doesn't only support protesters, but he's funneling arms to the Iraqi insurgents.


Bush has a habit of (momentarily) embracing one standard then the asserting the opposite. Take rules applicable to the troops. The President argued Congress couldn't make rules under the theory that the President could not be bound to any Congressional rules. Strange, that "rule against rules" didn't apply to the Iraqi government, imposing rules on US troops in Iraq.

Rules aren't good or bad, but labeled depending whether the President wants to cooperate, ignore the law, or grovel before a foreign power.

Should Americans be so lucky to get the President to grovel before Congress as the President does before foreign powers: "Whatever you want, Iraq government; but it Congress wants it, 'Oh, the President cannot comply with rules. That's impermissible.'"

* * *

Bush likes opposition if it serves his purposes.

This President may owe some of his successes to the public protests who forced his had to adjust.

Whether the President remains awakens to reality is a separate issue.

* * *

The President's appears to have an excellent relationship with his legal team putting together his defense before The Hague.

It's disappointing it took this long for Bush to (partially) accept there might be some benefits to democracy, public criticism, and communication.

The changes in his approach are fatal admissions that the original harassment, abuse, and retaliation against protesters was never warranted. Silencing critics proved to be counter productive: Not only was he deprived of valuable feedback and information required to lead and better manage; but he inspired more opposition to what might have been a workable policy had he adjusted and incorporated public concerns with his new direction.