Unqualified Offerings

Looking Sideways at Your World Since October 2001
« « Footballblogging XI | Main | Phall – Uh . . . LaLaLA! » »

November 20, 2006

Back in the USSA, The Story Continues

Alberto Gonzales interprets our fundamental freedoms in light of the (Soviet) Constitution:

Gonzales told about 400 cadets from the Air Force Academy’s political science and law classes that some see the [[illegal wireless surveillance] program as on the verge of stifling freedom rather that protecting the country.

“But this view is shortsighted,” he said. “Its definition of freedom — one utterly divorced from civic responsibility — is superficial and is itself a grave threat to the liberty and security of the American people.”

Got to watch that those bourgeois freedoms don’t interfere with the social rights of the working class, specifically the class that works to spy on you and, maybe, spirit you unreviewably away for enhanced interrogation.

Years ago, Robert Schifter found the excerpts from the (Soviet) constitution that would one day undergird Alberto Gonzales theories:

Next, I would drop down to Article 39, which states:

Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interest of society or the state. . . .

I would round out these quotations from the Soviet Constitution with Article 59, which reads as follows:

Citizens’ exercise of their rights and freedoms is inseparable from the performance of their duties and obligations.

Thanks, Republican Party!

Posted by Jim Henley @ 8:07 am, Filed under: Main

« « Footballblogging XI | Main | Phall – Uh . . . LaLaLA! » »

10 Responses to “Back in the USSA, The Story Continues”

  1. Comment by Jon H —
    November 20, 2006 @ 8:37 am

    It’s Texas, isn’t it?

    There must be something about Texas that warps their brains so.

  2. Comment by Michael —
    November 20, 2006 @ 9:18 am

    Jon H: bite me. We were voting against Bush before you’d heard of him, and we warned you, but did you listen? Nooo, he gets the job twice, with Republican majorities in the House and Senate. Texas can only account for 2/55ths of that problem, and cannot be held responsible for Lott, Frist, Foley, Helms, Hastert, Ney, McCain, etc. We have our share of blame; Tom Delay is from Texas, but his power came from the House giving it to him.

    What warps their brains is “Power and Money and the ability to, for all practical purposes, ignore checks and balances,” aka Washington.

    If you make this about Texas, then you come up with worthless NIMBY solutions that leave 49 other problems in place.

  3. Comment by quasibill —
    November 20, 2006 @ 9:52 am

    “civic responsibility” is a buzz phrase that should set off the same alarms as “social responsibility” or “security of the nation” whenever a politician utters it.

    Anything and everything can be justified by a resort to appeals to “civic responsibility.”

  4. Comment by Nell —
    November 20, 2006 @ 10:33 am

    Thanks for the link, Jim. I found this, from later on in Stifter’s 1987 speech to the ABA, particularly relevant:

    I hope that American participants will not be shy about explaining to the Soviet lawyers they meet the difference between a constitution which a country’s political leadership can manipulate at will and one which with the help of an independent judiciary can, indeed, shield the individual citizen against oppressive government. In responding to you, a good many of your interlocutors will parrot the party line, but deep down they will understand what you are talking about. [emphasis mine]

    @quasibill: You’re correct. It reminds me of a moment at one of the innumerable civil liberties / security panels that have taken place in the last several years, in which David Cole or another stalwart of liberty responded to an administration hack’s citing of military necessity, by saying that if we accept that military necessity can trump all other laws, rights, treaties, then there’s no point in having them: because the people involved will always claim military necessity.

  5. Comment by Nell —
    November 20, 2006 @ 10:39 am

    Sorry, that should be Schifter, not Stifter.

  6. Comment by Leonard —
    November 20, 2006 @ 11:17 am

    “Civic responsibility” is about the supposed duty of the citizen to the state. (I might quibble about it really being “society”, but we all know that society and state are synonymous in modern social democracy, right?) “Freedom” is about a duty of the state to the citizen, namely, to not interfere with him when he does most things.

    The one is an antonym to the other.

    What I find really offensive about the Gonzales quote is the idea that a politically incorrect definition can be a “grave threat to liberty”. So now our political masters get to define the terms of debate to preserve my liberty? War is peace.

  7. Comment by Walt —
    November 20, 2006 @ 12:45 pm

    I live in Texas, and you have my permission to blame us.

  8. Comment by matthew hogan —
    November 20, 2006 @ 1:39 pm

    In Sovi— um Texas, government constitutes on you.

  9. Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
    November 20, 2006 @ 3:00 pm

    Matthew, your comment reminds me of Brecht’s poem “The Solution”:

    After the uprising of the 17th June
    The Secretary of the Writers Union
    Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
    Stating that the people
    Had forfeited the confidence of the government
    And could win it back only
    By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
    In that case for the government
    To dissolve the people
    And elect another?

  10. Comment by Nat —
    November 20, 2006 @ 8:14 pm

    There’s an awesome quote by Reagan from around the same time as that Schifter speech, when the president visited Russia and was interviewed by the Soviet media:

    Both of our countries have constitutions. The Russian constitution says, “these are the rights and priviledges the government provides to the people.” Our constitution says, “we the people will allow the government to do these things.”

    11. (Comments automatically closed after 21 days.)