| Recent Posts | About the Author | Navigation |
|---|---|---|
|
|
David is an occasional blogger, software engineer, Nintendo fanboy, liberal, news magazine addict, voracious TiVo user, and bibliophile. He was born in St. Louis, grew up in southern Indiana, and returned to St. Louis to attend Washington University. He hasn't managed to escape yet. He's a fan of free wine tastings, too many tv shows to name, and eating out. David makes his living developing web applications used internally by his employer. He doesn't blog about work because he's heard too many stories about that causing workplace troubles. There's more on the about page. |
|
| Recent Comments | ||
|
|
||
| Recent Photos | ||
|
|
||
26 October 2004 - 8:45 am
Now I get it. When you fight a non-traditional "war on terror" you don't have to follow the "rules of war" (because its not a war, silly. We just call it that because otherwise we'd be terrorists invading countries and overthrowing governments left and right.) But there is a subtle corollary to this rule that was just come to light. If you fight a traditional war you also don't have to follow the "rules of war" if you claim this traditional war is part of an overarching "war on terror."
Now, I'd like you to think back to sixth grade when you learned about the separation of powers and how a bill becomes a law. Do you remember the part about treaties signed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate having the full weight of a law passed by Congress and signed by the President? I do, but President Bush apparently missed that lesson (anecdotally, the President seems to have a reputation as a bit of a skipper, so this isn't too far-fetched).
I'm getting sick and tired of this administration persuading itself that moral certainty is more important that the law. We have a President who, quite literally, thinks he has a mandate from God and appears to believe he rules by divine right. Remember how Bush wouldn't own up to making any mistakes during the second debate? Well, that's perfectly in keeping with the theory of the Divine Rights of Kings "which argued that certain kings ruled because they were chosen by God to do so and that these kings were accountable to no person except God." (Emphasis added.)
The more I think about Bush the more I believe that he really does believe he is doing God's work. His campaign appearances are reported to be "messiah-like" and he likes to sprinkle religious phrases into discussions of the decidedly secular legal framework of our country ("marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," emphasis added). Even the fact that Bush doesn't attend church supports this. After all, when you're on a mission from God you don't need someone else to translate for you.
Posted by on 26 October 2004 at 8:45 AM
Comments