December 08, 2001

TO BE FAIR to the

to the Attorney General, he is functioning as the fall guy on the tribunals. (Don't feel sorry for him though-- it is his job.) The Bush administration has tried to keep GWB above the fray as much as possible, as the bearer of an irresistible positive, patriotic message, while the dirty details are left to the lieutenants-- it's not quite good cop/bad cop, but it's close. And this works both ways, since Democrats who would shrink from attacking the President directly feel no compunction about letting the Pentecostal have it.

And it's a pretty good system, as a matter of fact, provided that the Congress do its job properly. They haven't "lived up their full potential" in that regard. I'm not at all certain that Senate Democrats' ideal version of "what to do with the 9/11 suspects" would be any better than what GWB has proposed. There has to be some solution, and somewhere the line must be drawn, the balance struck between security needs and individual liberty; there has to be some provision for the protection of private citizens against potential government over-reach. (Isn't that part of what "movement conservatism" is all about?)

I'm not against the idea of tribunals as a matter of principle, but at least I'd like to see the objections credibly addressed, especially with regard to judicial review. I didn't see the entire hearing, but I have the impression that the whole debate got diverted (if not derailed) from the main issue of civil liberties (addressed rhetorically rather than substantively-- thus Ashcroft's unanswered charge of disloyalty) to the relatively peripheral gun issue. I know a lot of people care deeply about the inviolability of gun records, pro and con, but it's clearly secondary.

I imagine the Democrats believe that this gun thing provides them with a winning "issue" (read "smear") for the future. It seems to me that it's a miscalculation, that there is a lot less anti-gun sentiment than there was pre-911, but leaving that aside: when are they going to stop risking the long-term welfare of the polity for the sake of winning short-term, tactical political points, real or imagined? Of course, the answer is probably "never," but a guy can dream, can't he? I know the Republicans are just as bad, but that doesn't let the Democrats off the hook.

Posted by Dr. Frank at December 8, 2001 02:27 PM | TrackBack