Customer Reviews

How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok

5 star:		(50)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

How Would A Patriot Act? is, primarily, about the radical claims of total presidential authority made by the Bush Administration's radical lawyers, with the ostensible aim of fighting terrorism and the effect of discarding the Constitution.

As Greenwald clearly sets out, America defeated the Communist threat from the Soviet Union without losing sight of the Constitution; fewer sacrifices will be necessary to defeat a few disorganized Islamists.

So why has Bush's Administration been allowed to get away with torturing prisoners to death, "disappearing" and detaining American citizens without trial, and Big Brother-like surveillance of telephone calls and internet traffic (in violation of countless laws and the 4th Amendment?) Why has the Republican controlled Congress failed to assert its powers of oversight?

At the core of these failures, Greenwald argues, is fear. While Franklin Roosevelt told us "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," Republican leaders have stoked our fear of another 9/11, in part out of cowardice, and in part for political expediency.

This book will fortify the spine of the American people, so that we can elect leaders who will emphatically restore Constitutional government, instead of the current batch of corrupt Republican cowards.

In sum, "How Would a Patriot Act?" is both timely and relevant, cutting through the noise of traditional media sources. (The latest NSA phone records scandal took place after the book was printed, but up-to-the-minute discussion can be found at Glenn's blog Unclaimed Territory.) It's squarely in the tradition of great pamphlets; buy it, read it and pass it along to your friends.

Greenwald has written this scathing indictment of the un-American and Unconstitutional power grab of this administration which has claimed the power to:

Arrest U.S. Citizens on U.S. Soil, declare them "Enemy Combatants" and lock them up indefinitely without charge or access to council.

Violate Federal Law without Congressional or Judicial oversight.

Violate signed International treaties against torture or rendition.

Spy on American Citizens without Warrants in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Greenwald builds his case and cites sources from across the political spectrum including a blistering opinion from Justice Scalia that U.S. Citizens can not be declared "Enemy Combatants" because they should instead be charged with Treason and processed by the justice system.

"How Would a Patriot Act?" is a quick read (123 pages) and is an outstanding resource for anyone who wants to understand how our present Constitutional Crisis evoled and how it compares to previous episodes in our history (Alien and Sedition Act, The Civil War, McCarthyism, Watergate). Greenwald cites The U.S. Constitution, The Federalists Papers, Supreme Court Rulings, and Federal Law to explain and build his case against the Presidents actions.

After reading this book you will understand why the Presidents appologists have been reduced to defending the administration with the absurd notion that the President is above the law.

READ THIS BOOK AND PASS IT ALONG...

I thought we decided not to have a king back in 1776. But no.

Glenn Greenwald demonstrates with precision how the current King, sorry, President has decided we don't really need a Constitution.

Article I? Obsolete. War powers were once under the control of Congress, but now the King can declare war on anybody (Iran??) without the consent of our elected representatives. The executive can bomb anyone anywhere, because He Knows Best in the everlasting War On Terror (trademark).

Fourth amendment? Unnecessary, we no longer need warrants to examine letters and personal effects. We need only trust Big Brother in the great War On Terror (trademark).

Congress can disband, because any legislation they pass can be overruled with a signing statement. The courts no longer provide any checks and balances, as the King can go forward with any executive action he wants. Why? The War On Terror (trademark).

This *egregious* usurpation of power by the executive branch is unprecedented in American history. The author urges citizens to take action before America is only history.

I strongly recommend that all patriotic citizens, from libertarian to progressive, read Greenwald for a devastating analysis of a nation on the edge. "A republic...if they can keep it."

Glenn Greenwald has written a very fine, and very timely, book. How Would A Patriot Act admirably summarizes the offenses that the Bush Administration has committed, not just against American citizens, but against the Constitution itself.

I came of adult age during Watergate, and one of the major lessons from that terrible time, repeated from our founding times, was that no man is above the law. That is the basis for the very structure of our government, in reaction to the abuses of power by the British monarchy against the Colonialists. This is what Mr. Greenwald concisely explains; using many examples of the implementation of the "alien" theories of governance espoused by this Administration and its apologists.

The title is a double edged sword. It indicts George Bush by laying out particulars of his behaviors, which are not in keeping with patriotism, and instead show the amassing of regal power. The other edge is in how the book should cause a reader to reflect as to how he or she should act, as a patriot.

Fellow citizens, the time to act is now. Read the book, certainly, to be aware of what can be termed "high crimes and misdemeanors". Keep up with Mr. Greenwald's blog, Unclaimed Territory. Explore more into the subject (see, for instance, Elizabeth De La Vega's article for The Nation magazine, "The White House Criminal Conspiracy", available at The Nation's website). Write your Congress folk and urge them to fight against the usurpation of congressional and judicial powers by the Executive Branch. These are some of the ways that a patriot would act.

And, fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy few years.

Glenn Greenwald arrived from nowhere last fall to become a major star in bloggerdom by mid-spring. I think the essay that put him over the top was his ruminations on how so many Bush minions equate "conservative" with "pro-Bush" and how authoritarian and cultish Bush's core constituency seems. It's a must-read on its own -- somewhere on his site [...] .

Now, he's written a fine little book, focused only on issues of the unitary executive theory of anti-Constitutional law, as exemplified by some of George Bush's high-handed actions, particularly his unwarranted (pun intended) use of the NSA to spy on American citizens. If you're reading this, you almost certainly know the rudiments of this scandal, so there's no point in giving details.

Greenwald is a lawyer, and it shows. His book reads like a good legal brief -- tight, to the point, let the facts speak for themselves. It's captivating, like a good horror novel. I would have read the book in one sitting except that I started late in the evening and got scared. I finished it during daylight the next day.

This is a book for all those who believe that we must be behind our president 100%, for those who think criticism of the president is mindless bashing, for those who think that criticism of the same is a lack of patriotism, treason, and undermines our troops' morale. Because if you do believe these things, author, Glenn Greenwald will provide a new perspective on what it really means to be a patriot and how one would act. It is clear that he takes aim at George Bush and Richard Cheney, and those who support him.

Starting with a brief background on the FISA law, Greenwald explains how it came about, and how it has worked in a world of a Soviet threat through the present, until this president decided to bypass the law while telling Americans that he was abiding by it. He illustrates how he and Gonzalez were pedaling a pattern of deceit daily.

Next, there had to be some justification for such unilateral action. Enter, John Yoo, assistant attorney general in the Justice's Department's Office of Legal Counsel which "produces legal memoranda that, upon issuance, become the official position of the Justice Department and the entire executive branch." Yoo, a firm believer in the power of the president, wrote exactly what the White House wanted to read. According to Yoo-know-who, the president had the power to do whatever he wanted to do, without the consultation of congress or constraint by court. All this for the security of the United States. In other words, the President of the United States was now above the law, and the checks and balances were no longer in place with an executive that now assumed power over the other two. Bush was king, accountable to no one for his decisions or his actions.

Armed with a justification, Bush wasted no time in exercising it. He arrested American citizens by signing secret executive orders that deprived them of liberty, charges, counsel, trial, and even communication. He ruled that he could hold them indefinitely. He took it up a notch by doing this to an American citizen, in particular, Jose Padilla who was not only an American citizen arrested on American soil, but on "evidence" obtained by torture.

So important was torture to his policy that he threatened to veto an anti-torture bill introduced by Senator John McCain (R) of Arizona. When it passed overwhelmingly in the both houses of congress, the president went to Plan B where he added a signing statement that he would only apply the ban on torture in a manner consistent with his constitutional authority. With John Yoo telling him, his power as president could not be challenged, he could disregard the will of congress and the bill in its entirety. The bill specifically passed to control his use of torture was the same bill he declared he could ignore.

When the liberal and the widely denigrated New York Times exposed Bush's illegal eavesdropping AFTER the presidential election which was several months after the NY Times first learned about it, the administration defended its actions stating that the president's powers included "the right to use war powers against Americans on US soil," and "the right to use them even if Congress makes it a crime to do so, or the courts rule that doing so is illegal." How's that for being above the law?

And this is what began to generate a conservative backlash from those who were his ardent supporters. The rabidly supportive Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia eviscerated the administration in an opinion on executive excesses. Other well-known conservatives such as congressman Bob Barr (R) of Georgia and George Will, journalist, have spoken out against the chief executive's flounting of the law and his disregard of our constitutional rights. Faced with growing opposition, Messrs. Bush and Cheney moved to Plan C.

While most of our famous leaders have instilled in us confidence and fearlessness, Bush and Cheney have gone in the opposite direction. Instead of telling us that terrorism is not our greatest threat, is not so great as being destroyed by the British empire before the nation can be born, by Naziism and imperialism, or by nuclear annihilation in a Cold War, we must remain in mortal fear (or terror) of terrorism, and put our trust in the wisdom and knowledge Big Brother Bush as the safest course for the American people. "Invoking the threat of terrorism and the president's proclaimed commitment to `protect' us from those threats in the administration's sole and all-purpose defense of its conduct." In addition to the fear tactic, Bush and Cheney accused their critics of "actually wanting to help the terrorists attack America." (Where have we heard that before?!) "The tacit assumption is that one can only oppose terrorism by endorsing whatever the administration wants."

Adding emphasis to this administration tactic, the author also quotes Senator Cornyn (R) of Texas, former judge who has doubled as dupe and dope for George Bush, and who is also known for more than one controversial and revealing gaffe when he added, "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead." Senator Pat Roberts (R) of Kansas has also said about the same thing. Greenwald allows the reader to connect the dots between these statements and that of Patrick Henry's famous, "Give me liberty or give me death!"

When Senator Rockefeller (D) of West Virginia attempted to initiate an investigation of Bush's warrantless eavesdropping early in 2006, the administration that always insisted it had nothing to hide and welcomed any investigation went into overdrive to quash it. In this they succeeded. Even though they threatened to prosecute the paper and its journalists, The NY Times ran the story that Rockefeller attempted to investigate and the government's reaction, but again, the story broke after the national election.

Greenwald asks us to put terrorism in perspective, that the United States has faced far greater threats in our history without sacrificing liberty for security, that "excess loyalty to an individual or party is the very antithesis of patriotism, as it places fealty to that individual or party over allegiance to the country, its interests, and its values."

This is review number 137 for me. It is also my longest because I was so taken with the message of this book. As the author emphasizes, it is our Bill of Rights that is our most cherished ideal. It is more powerful than the fear of terrorism, more important than being conservative or liberal or being a supporter or detractor of Bush and Cheney. No one is more important than our constitution. That document and the Federalist Papers are filled with that belief of those who wrote them, those who believed that just as people must be held to account for their actions, so should their magistrates.

We the people, not a president, are the stewards of our constitution and our legacy. It is up to us to claim it, protect it, and cherish it above any other. That is what this book explains, and that is why I recommend it highly. Please read this and "The Genius of Impeachment" by John Nichols and "Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush" by the Center for Constitutional Rights.

These are short books with powerful messages. They are about our responsibility as citizens, what being a patriot really means.

We owe this to ourselves.

Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, a conservative or a liberal, the issue of presidential overreach that Greenwald examines here should greatly concern you. I read this book in just a couple of hours, and it clarified for me with concise precision the recent controversies surrounding the current administration's efforts to work around legal limits on its power. The president claims he's a "war president," and that he can circumvent all sorts of laws accordingly. However, war hasn't been officially declared, and he doesn't have the constitutional authority to break the laws that he's been breaking.

One chapter title, "Be Very Afraid," has an effective double meaning: Greenwald explains how hysterical fear-mongering is crucial to the current administration's tactics, but he also explains what we REALLY have to fear. That is, Greenwald effectively warns us that our current president has gradually set himself up as a monarch-like leader who thinks he can act entirely on his own discretion, no matter what The People (let alone the Senate and Congress) think. That's about as un-American as you can get, given that our country's founders were motivated by precisely such abusive overreach by another leader named George.

Greenwald draws effectively on many historical precedents, and on accounts of very recent events. As a constitutional lawyer, he has the authority and the eloquence to warn Americans convincingly that the way of life they and their ancestors have taken for granted for over two centuries is in severe jeopardy. Americans should all listen, and then tell others.

When future generations ponder how our government could take such an awful turn toward autocracy, this is the book they must read. Greenwald painstakingly and methodically dissects the current administration's law-breaking here. He begins by setting out his mission: to tell the tale of President Bush, 9/11 and the FISA courts--leading the reader down a path to just one undeniable conclusion, no matter what party one swears allegiance to. And when you are finished, you'll be left with a far better understanding of the issues than almost any of the talking heads on television (especially cable).

My only complaint is that Greenwald's tone here is more suited to a law review article than a mass market audience. And while I don't mind it, as a long-time fan of his blog, I had hoped for the more sardonic, jocular tone found on his website instead of the academic one in his book. But don't let that stop you from making this a must-read. Greenwald is a fantastic writer, expounding upon one of the most important and misunderstood issues of our day. Do not miss it.

When I started this book, I wondered, "What's the point of beating up on the Bush administration at this stage in the game? The man only has another 2 years in office." But as I continued reading, I appreciated what author Glenn Greenwald had done. He had put together the basic brief describing the way the Bush administration has attempted to rewrite the Constitution, placing almost all federal power in the hands of the Executive branch.

Greenwald's case spans many events that would have been considered scandals in the previous administration. Curiously, today they are tolerated and even lauded by many lawmakers and citizens. US citizens have been declared "enemy combatents" by executive order. The NSA has been busy skirting very government-friendly statutes in order to spy on American citizens. Bush has penned obver 750 "signing statements" that give him the authority (in his eyes) to flout the very laws he is signing. Greenwald lays out -- in language accessible to non-lawyers -- both the fact of these transgressions and the way they violate basic American principles. Greenwald even marshalls testimony from very conservative Americans -- including former representative Robert Barr and Justice Antonin Scalia -- to demonstrate that regardless of ideology, the Bush Administartion is performing acts that go against the very structure of American law.

Greenwald eloquently contrasts the words of our founders as they faced off against a tyrant named George against the current situtation with another man named George. He excerpts the Constitution and the Federalist Papers to illuminate the state of mind of our founders. He makes it clear that these men, who had risked life and property to fight the British Empire, were well acquainted with tyranny and deliberately crafted a government that split up the power of the monarchy. That a 21st century president is attempting to undo the work of the founders -- in order to "protect Americans" is simply extraordinary. Greenwald also offers an explanation of the way Bush's radical cabal keeps power: through fear. The constant din of "9/11" runs through many of his speeches. Without keeping the populace in terror, and without a rather accomodating opposition party, it's doubtful that Bush would still be in office.

The book is no liberal polemic. It is a reasoned argument from a constitutional lawyer who sees his country being taken over by anti-constitutional radicals. Greenwald offers no solution except that the citizenry hold elected leaders accountable for their actions. I found this lack to be a flaw. But any honest citizen reading Greenwald book should hear an inner alarm that sounds the true threat to our democracy. That threat comes not from ill-equipped and disorganized terror groups who strike convenient targets once every few years. It is that citizens would gladly give up their security in exchange for a tenuous freedom offered by Bush and those like him.

This book is like kryptonite to Bush followers.

I ordered copies of this book for my brothers and parents. At only 128 pages of damning, incontrovertible, to-the-point prose, it is simply a must read for anybody who cares about the direction the U.S. is headed, and wants to be informed.

One strength of the book is that it is not written from a a 'liberal vs. conservative' or 'democrat vs. republican' angle.

With that said, the book IS highly critical of Bush and his administration, but - notably - not highly critical of republicans. In other words, one could imagine the author supporting a "true" republican who didn't insist on subverting our laws and constitution. But the book is a damning indictment of Bush's admitted lawbreaking and his admitted commitment to principles that contradict AMERICAN values (as opposed to liberal or conservative values).

That's why everybody needs to read it, regardless of political stripes.

If you can read this book and still support GW Bush, then you are not a conservative, and (of course) not a liberal. You are simply a Bush worshipper.