Jonathan Berman Responds to Criticism
Dear Phuong,
I wasn't talking about morality in my piece, Jonathan Berman Fought the Law and the Law Won. What I'm saying is that Butler is trying to tell us that the US is doing something illegal when its not.
When I say law and justice shouldn't be confused I mean that when we hear something is law we shouldn't automatically assume it is just. There are many laws that are injust in the world. We're just lucky because we live in the US, not that we're immune and laws are created by the will of the people.
However, the US has had its share of unfair laws, like the Jim Crow laws. Here you had one group of individuals, whites, use the law to oppress blacks. I don't think anyone believes that what the whites did was injust but you can't deny it was the law.
To accuse the Bush Administration of being immoral is one thing but to accuse them of breaking the law is another. If the President broke the law its as if he's defying the very authority of the US that gives it the power to make the law. If Bush did that he might as well be saying he's overthrowing the government.
On the other hand, if Bush is using his authority legitimately to do immoral things that's a whole other story. Why does Congress sit idly by Gitmo embarrases the US on a daily basis? All they have to do is pass a bill and the situation could be remedied, however, they choose not to. As a result, Bush is within his right until the law is changed hopefully when the Supreme Court rules on Hamdan in a few months that will be the case.
If the law changes I believe that would constrain Bush's actions because he certainly doesn't want to usurp the authority of the Constitution. Yet, according to Butler's mistaken analysis of the law that is exactly what she is accusing Bush of doing.
I wasn't talking about morality in my piece, Jonathan Berman Fought the Law and the Law Won. What I'm saying is that Butler is trying to tell us that the US is doing something illegal when its not.
When I say law and justice shouldn't be confused I mean that when we hear something is law we shouldn't automatically assume it is just. There are many laws that are injust in the world. We're just lucky because we live in the US, not that we're immune and laws are created by the will of the people.
However, the US has had its share of unfair laws, like the Jim Crow laws. Here you had one group of individuals, whites, use the law to oppress blacks. I don't think anyone believes that what the whites did was injust but you can't deny it was the law.
To accuse the Bush Administration of being immoral is one thing but to accuse them of breaking the law is another. If the President broke the law its as if he's defying the very authority of the US that gives it the power to make the law. If Bush did that he might as well be saying he's overthrowing the government.
On the other hand, if Bush is using his authority legitimately to do immoral things that's a whole other story. Why does Congress sit idly by Gitmo embarrases the US on a daily basis? All they have to do is pass a bill and the situation could be remedied, however, they choose not to. As a result, Bush is within his right until the law is changed hopefully when the Supreme Court rules on Hamdan in a few months that will be the case.
If the law changes I believe that would constrain Bush's actions because he certainly doesn't want to usurp the authority of the Constitution. Yet, according to Butler's mistaken analysis of the law that is exactly what she is accusing Bush of doing.
posted by Johnny B. | 2:22 AM
|
6 comments
