imperial presidency

This article by Noam Chomsky is a good read. It is mostly about war crimes as well as the differences between what the people want, what the US government wants, and what the US government says it wants. (Link) Excerpt:

"We can see right on today’s front pages why the Justice Department was right to be concerned that the President and his advisers might be subject to death penalty under the laws passed by the Republican Congress in 1996.

...Two weeks ago, the NY Times featured a front-page story reporting the conquest of the Falluja General Hospital. It reported that 'Patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs.' An accompanying photograph depicted the scene. That was presented as an important achievement. 'The offensive also shut down what officers said was a propaganda weapon for the militants: Falluja General Hospital, with its stream of reports of civilian casualties.' And these 'inflated' figures – inflated because our Dear Leader so declares – were 'inflaming opinion throughout the country' and the region, driving up 'the political costs of the conflict.'

Let’s go back to the picture and story about the closing of the 'propaganda weapon.' There are some relevant documents, including the Geneva Conventions, which state: 'Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.' So page one of the world’s leading newspaper is cheerfully depicting war crimes for which the political leadership could be sentenced to death under US law. No wonder the new moderate Attorney-General warned the President that he should use the constitutional authority concocted by the Justice Department to rescind the supreme law of the land, adopting the concept of presidential sovereignty devised by Hitler’s primary legal adviser."