Thursday, December 19, 2019

Some good points from Angelo Codevilla

William Webster, the only person ever to serve as head of both the CIA and the FBI, emerged briefly from his retirement hut in the Deep State swamp, to utter some comments on the FBI and its critics. Angelo Codevilla explains why Webster and his world view are antithetical to a genuinely free society. A couple of samples:
None would suggest, however, that Webster or any of our reigning security-crats intend what amount to new rules will be applicable generally; i.e. that they mean to grant to others the presumption of immunity from “second-guess[ing] discretionary judgments;” nor the right to surveil and investigate political enemies and then, laws on classified information notwithstanding, to spread results and innuendo so as to defeat or drive them from office.

In short, Webster’s “rule of law” amounts to the assertion that he and people like himself are the law. Hence, to criticize them is to criticize the rule of law.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

And yet, regardless of what anyone might wish, the Left’s cynical use of the Steele dossier as a pretend-predicate for its activities has freed one and all to ignore the heretofore sacrosanct Fourth Amendment restriction that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . .” Unless that restriction is reinstated by prosecuting and punishing the liberals and leftists who trashed it, the Right, too, will use the powers of intelligence, turbo-charged by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, to its own advantage.

That is because unilateral adherence to law is untenably stupid.
I.e., two can play at that game.

3 comments:

Spiny Norman said...

Who do these bastards think they are, the KGB? The Democrat Party secret police?

More than as dozen years ago, I was dismissed as a conspiracy theorist when I proposed that what is now referred to as the Deep State, the permanent bureaucracy, led by the State Department, the FBI and the CIA, were a separate government unto themselves, with their own laws and rules, and the President was just an annoyance, an oaf living in the White House, whose policies could be safely ignored, or sabotaged as need be.

I think Reagan was the first they actively undermined and were unconcerned if anyone outside their cabal noticed, since the bulk of the media were in their pocket.

Spiny Norman said...

That is because unilateral adherence to law is untenably stupid.I.e., two can play at that game.

Paco, I'm surprised at you. If any Republican President, Republican FBI or CIA director attempted such a thing, the Bureaucracy would resist them at every turn. It's not just the leadership that is corrupt with power.

Paco said...

Spiny: Angelo's comment (and my little coda) are simply meant to underscore the fact that, once society is untethered from the rule of law and shackled to the rule of men, then every faction is free to operate however it wishes - or, to be more precise, in whatever manner it has the power to support and maintain. Naturally, as a practical matter, the center-right would be at a clear disadvantage in terms of enforcing its will, since the bureaucracy (and the media and academia) are already stacked against it. Ultimately, however, that might not matter so much; depending on how insane things really get, there's a lot to be said for the sheer power of armed violence, and most privately-owned firearms are, I should think, in the hands of citizens not at all inclined toward the creation of a socialist state (I am not advocating or cheering on civil war, btw; once all hell breaks loose, there's no telling what kind of uncontrollable forces may be unleashed, and personal liberty could be the first victim regardless of which faction comes out on top).