Deeds, not words, should be the empyrean guideline in which judgment is passed on the events of history. In the book "1984" there operated a government agency called the "Ministry of Truth." It was with words that this agency changed the history of the past by rewriting articles and changing the meanings of terms, to what the author George Orwell called "double-think". Strange times indeed, when reality begins to mirror fiction, nonesuch as illustrated with the ironically titled editorial "Reviving the Constitution". The author, Andrew Rosenthal, an Editor for the New York Times, praises the Obama administration whilst under the guise of attacking them. He does a bait and switch style of argument presentation, by pulling a reader in with a particular statement only to use statements counter-intuitive to the original argument. For example, he writes in the opening paragraph"Ever since the George W. Bush administration decide to trash the constitution, the Geneva conventions and federal law, the thought of a government lawyer talking aboutjustice in the age of terrorism has made me cringe. Although I hoped to lose this automatic reflex when Barack Obama took office, I’ve been distressed by many of his national security moves"
At this moment he is stating to his audience that the Bush presidency was evil and menacing, and was doing everything it could to trample and destroy America. Yet despite what utopia he had envisioned would happen, here is the new administration ultimately doing the same thing, and even though he mentions he had been "distressed by many..moves" he does not say what these are and he is careful to not let it become an outright attack of their actions.
"Some of what they said troubled me. They both seemed reject any role of civilian courts in deciding when to kill American Citizens suspected of terrorism. I am not as enamored of military tribunals as Mr. Holder or Mr. Johnson are."
Though declaring that murder of American Citizens as only "troubling," he later in the article cites a speech in which the Attorney General made a powerful case for such federal actions. He makes the argument that the "bad" actions of the Bush Administration were now permissible for continuation since the current Justice Department had found a path to justify such actions under the Constitution. Mr. Rosenthal attacks Bush once again by stating the former President only used "legal opinions" to provide merit-able cause, yet fails to describe what that means exactly. He also undermines any attempt to declare the Obama Administration's actions as being proof of an existence of a global "war on terror", since the term "war" brings actual constitutional considerations. This is of no surprise since nearly three years ago, the administration sent out in email that the term "war on terror" was no longer to be used, that it would now be called "overseas contingency operation". A contingency operation does not have the same rules since it is not called a war. Mr Rosenthal left this out on reason as it serves only to counteract his faux argument. Interestingly, he makes no mention of the NDAA at all in this article, though it now gives the government the right to assassinate anyone, anywhere that is suspected of being a terrorist without a trail, which is an argument central at the heart of his editorial piece. Nor does he make no mention of Operation Fast and Furious , the botched operation in which the government was intentionally trying to manufacture a crisis in which to undermine the Constitution by legislating gun control. He also repeatedly shifts attention and blame away from the Obama Administration by mentioning President George Bush five times, in comparison to only twice for President Obama. Also noteworthy is how he refers to the former President as "Mr. Bush" and Obama as "President."
By the content of the piece, it is very clearly intended for a liberal audience. Unfortunately for liberals, this does not cast them in a positive light, for what does it says about said audience when any person whom pays attention to world and national events can clearly see that this article is lacking in information, offers no real reasoning behind approval for the execution of American citizens, and is an unapologetic bashing of people who have not been in power for over three years. In one hand, the argument it is full of half truths and talking points to deceitfully argue that the killing of American citizens without a civilian trial is wrong. Yet, on the other hand, he argues that is now alright since they've changed the terminology and claim the actions to be "constitutional." This is the definition of Double-Think.
The article is pure propaganda, justifying the nefarious actions for the administration. There is no "reviving" of the constitution in these actions; it is the pretense of the usurpation of American principles. As George Orwell fatefully declared " Who controls the past. controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
Remember: Big Brother is watching
No comments:
Post a Comment