Rule of Law - For All, not just for some?
"Obeying the rule of law is for all" ;The hypocracy in stating this but breaking laws is found in Bush 2's tenure as President
Date: 5/24/2006 12:54:34 PM ( 15 y ) ... viewed 2333 times
Laws are for setting a standard of behavior in a society. When we all obey them, life works out better. Thats the rationale for applying laws to a society. They sort of sum up our collective morality too, like an agreement on how to act and how to punish those who trespass, in various ways, against others. Equal rights and responsibilities are also part of what law does.
Personally, I am not a big law and order person. That is more of a conservative/religious mindset, where they believe everyone needs to be told how to behave.
The other side of that coin, of the role of law, that I believe in, says people are born knowing right from wrong and we should simply choose to be good people, but when we choose to do wrong there is deterrants. Either way, it is all about following a standard of morality and fairness by each and every one of us.
Why I am going into all this is because I want to show that even the President must obey the laws. President Bush himself cannot be above the law because that sets precidents for future presidents, as well as imperils the present day's social contract that we all are bound to, like the start of a breaching levy.
Without everyone on board, the law could easily be used to create an unfair advantage over others. Especially vital to this is having the most powerfull person in a society obey the laws. He or she is a role model, a leader, and has the greatest responsibility to obey the laws of the land.
Indeed, President Bush himself has spoken about how "successful societies protect freedom with the consistent and impartial rule of law."
He says we cannot have laws that some obey and not others.
But Bush has stated that it is okay for him to break laws.
Bush 2 is breaking international laws, and maybe that is ok, since he is not in the jurstiction of America...
BUT he also breaks national laws - wiretapping, outing CIA agents working undercover, and of course, the telling of lies to gain support for engaging in a war of invasion and occupation of a foreign and soveriegn nation.
But is that a law to "not tell lies"? Or is it just breaking your personal moral code? - But if it is NOT IN your personal moral code, then you are seriously lacking and you are unfit to be President. If it IS in your code, then you are obviously not the kind of person that sees any need to obey what you know to be right and wrong, and of course unfit to be President of anything, much less a nation.
No matter how perfectly moral a President is, which might justify why it would be allright for him to break a law if he sees it as nessessary for some reason, there is allways the NEXT president coming along.
If the next President isn't such a highly moral person and won't have to obey the laws either, because of a precedent set by , say, for eg., BUSH 2 , the we are in trouble. It all goes down the toilet then. It HAS to be applyed to everyone.
We all know the real truth of this is that Bush 2 thinks he can break laws because he is such a good person, with the moral guidance of god who will not let Bush go wrong. Heck, with that pedigree, it would be a waste to stifle Bush with the having to obey the laws of the land.
Of course, he is just is a wildly self-centered person, so utterly consumed by his own self-image of grandeur and vital perfection, unable to do wrong. His statments about god talking to him, and about how it is okay for him to break laws, and even the content of his lies and the excuses that follow show evidence of another Hitler type persona. Without the charisma and talent.
------------------some links and opinions:
quote: "What has been perhaps most mind-boggling about George W. Bush's presidency is its consistent inconsistency on the application of law, both at home and abroad. Bush demands respect for the law from U.S. citizens and lectures foreign countries on the need to abide by international norms, while simultaneously flouting the rules when they apply to him or his administration."
K - A President has so many agencies at his disposal, that breaking laws could mean putting entire agencies in peril, and the powers of those agencies could be put to work committing crimes. These are primary reasons why a President MUST obey the laws.
quote: - "[the CIA's] ethos of telling truth to power has been corrupted by politics to such a degree that George W. Bush now sees the Central Intelligence Agency as virtually his family’s fiefdom, with the Langley, Virginia, headquarters even named for his father, George H.W. Bush, a former CIA director."
“the administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made.” [iraq pre-war intel.]
"until Bush’s sense of entitlement over the intelligence community is ended the problem of the U.S. government’s misuse of intelligence is likely to continue."
"George W. Bush IS a Liar"
The White House is taking umbrage over new press reports that George W. Bush misled the American people on a key justification for invading Iraq. But Bush’s latest excuse – that he was just an unwitting conveyor of bad information, not a willful purveyor of lies – has been stretched thin by overuse.
President Bush: "It's Not Law Unless I Say So (And Even If I Said So)"
Impeachment: "Time for citizens to insist Bush obey law"
Hollow Rhetoric on 'Rule of Law'
"Bush's use of torture illustrates the criminality and dictatorial nature of his regime"
But for all the above, the most essential reason of all to obey laws is that they are the underpinnings of Democracy and democratic society.
quote: "Democracy, some of us believe, is a form of state in which the right to exercise supreme power over a people and territory resides in the body of citizens entitled to vote, these citizens elect their representatives to exercise ... on the citizens' behalf ... the power of the state, these elected representatives are accountable to the citizens. and, finally, these representatives exercise power in accordance with the rule of law.
So, once the rule of law disappears, democracy necessarily disappears.
K - once the rule of law disappears, democracy necessarily disappears. Its worth repeating.
commentarist Arthur Shaw writes:
"When the state discards the rule of law, crime (often an obstruction of justice) generally results ... but disregard for the rule of law is more than just a mere source of crime. A pattern of disregard by the state for the rule of law may become the overthrow of the law that creates the illegality of crime in the first place.
"Even more important than the fight against mere crime and more important than even an unconstitutional concentration of power by an element of the state is the destruction of democracy because democracy presupposes the rule of law.
"So, our point is: a pattern of disregard by the state for the rule of law generally begins in crime, may develop into an obscene concentration of power of the state, and culminate in the destruction of democracy. "
end quote, read the rest here:
When hypocracy enters the political leadership picture, the issues become clouded and the future uncertain. Therefore, hypocritical leaders are not serving the nation well. The hypocritical leaders who are also "absolutely absorbed in self-grandeur and striving for apocalyptic cleansing of the world" , like Bush is, are more than a danger to us all, it is a real threat, a clear and present danger.
We need a law against allowing leaders to continue serving after one example of committing a hypocracy is shown!!
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!Print this page
Email this page