Franz Kafka's The Trial contains a famous parable in which a simple countryman attempts to gain 'entrance into the Law,' only to spend his life rebuffed by a series of increasingly powerful gatekeepers. He eventually passes away never knowing the law's meaning, source or authority.
In today's editorial, The New York Times tells a similar story concerning the legal standing of our government's wiretapping and waterboarding programs.
If anyone wishes to investigate the legality of these programs, our gatekeeper, Michael Mukasey, confirms their legality and rebuffs calls for investigation. When asked how he knows, his response was that the Justice Department, prior to his tenure, asserted their legality. Such confidence is striking, to say the least, given the president’s refusal to release documents essential to understanding the legal judgment.
The editorial makes clear that the executive branch’s obfuscations are being echoed by the Senate. That is, the Senate also functions as the gatekeeper to the Law.
This is what passes for the rule of law nowadays.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
A Kafkaesque conception of the rule of law
Posted by MT Nguyen at 10:17 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 Comments:
Neither Obama or Clinton have talked much about reining in the enhanced executive authority claimed by Bush, which suggests that this problem will not go away when he leaves office. Traditionally, Congress is the political body that is supposed to provide the oversight that prevent such abuses of the law. However, the Republican Congress didn't seem to care much, and the Democratic Congress has been stymied by the Dept. of Justice to provide very effective oversight.
So here's my question--should the Attorney General be not just approved but proposed by the Congress? It seems to me that there has been way too much collusion between the Presidential office and the Dept. of Justice, and while Mukasey might be superior to Gonzales, he is obviously providing legal cover for the illegal practices of the Bush administration instead of prosecuting the law.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but I think your suggestion would violate it.
I don't think we need to change the rules, although admittedly collusion between Justice and the executive has been a recurring problem. We need a better confirmation process. The process we have now is a debacle: weak questions are easily deflected, and pointed and important questions are either ignored, evaded or are answered in such abstraction that no one can decipher the content. At Mukasey's confirmation, he was asked questions about waterboarding. Guess what? He answered that he didn't know quite know what it involved!!! The logical response would have been to allow him time to become familiar with the technique and then ask him again whether it constitutes torture. Instead they let it go, and now we're in this mess. Shame on Chuck Schumer for confirming him. He should be held to account for that.
Post a Comment