Their George and Ours
Barbara Ehrenreich writes a tantelizing Op-ed in today's NYT comparing the circumstances in 1776 to those applicable today. It is silly to overstate the parrallels, as she concedes. But...
Read a little further to those parts of the declaration we seldom venture into after ninth-grade civics class...The bulk of the declaration is devoted to a list of charges against George III, several of which bear an eerie relevance to our own time.I understand Ehrenreich is preaching to the choir. But play devil's advocate and tell me if you can why her comparisons are inapt.
George III is accused, for example, of "depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury." Our own George II has imprisoned two U.S. citizens — Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi — since 2002, without benefit of trials, legal counsel or any opportunity to challenge the evidence against them. Even die-hard Tories Scalia and Rehnquist recently judged such executive hauteur intolerable.
It would be silly, of course, to overstate the parallels between 1776 and 2004...Nor would it be tactful to press the analogy between our George II and their George III, of whom the British historian John Richard Green wrote: "He had a smaller mind than any English king before him save James II."
But the parallels are there, and undeniable. "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power," the declaration said of George III, and today the military is indulgently allowed to investigate its own crimes in Iraq. George III "obstructed the Administration of Justice." Our George II has sought to evade judicial review by hiding detainees away in Guantánamo, and has steadfastly resisted the use of the Alien Tort Claims Act, which allows non-U.S. citizens to bring charges of human rights violations to U.S. courts.
posted by david burnstein at 2:14 PM
2 Comments:
First of all G III became the monarch legitimately, according to the rules of accession without a politicized court's connivance. Second, he had better things to do than to clear brush around the royal estates. Third, he had every right to quash the ungrateful, not to mention, disloyal and slave-holding upstarts in the U.S. colonies seeking independence -- more right than Lincoln in launching the civil war and Lincoln had vastly more right in this respect than GII in attacking Iraq. Fourth, GIII didn't have offspring prone to boozing and pub crawling. Fifth, GIII's wife wasn't a librarian. Sixth, GIII would find the oil business beneath conptempt -- as to owining a baseball franchise, unthinkable!! Seventh, if GIII died, he wouldn't be replaced by some creep whose skills at repartee consisted of "Go fuck yourself, Senator." And these are only the most superficial differnces.
That is f-cking brilliant, dad. I love it!
Post a Comment
<< Home