Bill O’Reilly revealed something new and especially disturbing in an interview with Fox News contributor Ellis Henican.  In this interview, Henican defended the need for the torture investigations, and O’Reilly responded with an absolutely astounding argument for why the investigations should not happen:

Henican:  I’m on the side of doing somethng very simple here. Let’s have an investigation…

O’Reilly:  Headed by whom?

Henican:  Let the justice department decide what crimes have been committed here…

O’Reilly:  Holder? You want Holder in charge of that?

Henican:  Let the facts be gathered here and let the facts lead. Why are you scared of the facts?

O’Reilly:  Do you know who Eric Holder is?

Henican:  He’s the Attorney General of the United States. 

O’Reilly:  Do you know what he did?

Henican:  The professionals in that office are going to make that decision, not Eric Holder.

O’Reilly:  You listen to me. Eric Holder was second in command to Janet Reno. Eric Holder and Janet Reno put the wall up between the FBI and the CIA which led to the 9-11 attacks. If anybody should be prosecuted, it’s him.

So forget about the fact that waterboarding has been considered torture and a war crime for more than 100 years.  Forget about the fact that officials in the Bush administration have admitted to making waterboarding a routine practice.  Forget about the fact that the United States has a Constitution and a set of laws which place the investigation and the prosecution of war crimes under the authority of the Justice Department.  Forget about the fact that Barack Obama is the duly-elected President of the United States. Forget about the fact that Obama nominated Eric Holder to be Attorney General.  And forget about the fact that the Senate confirmed Holder by a 75% vote (including 19 out of 41 Republicans).

All that should be set aside because Bill O’Reilly thinks that the Attorney General is unfit for the position. Oddly, though, O’Reilly has not called for Holder to resign or be fired, and then for the investigations to commence - which would be the next logical step after determining that he’s not fit to oversee federal investigations. So O’Reilly has done exactly what he’s accusing the other side of doing - of politicizing the justice system, of using it to protect friends and go after enemies.  This, of course, is nothing new in American politics, but O’Reilly seems to be taking it to a new and scarier level.

Take the investigation and impeachment of Bill Clinton.  It was a highly politicized affair, but the purpose was to take down a popular Democratic president and/or set-up a Republican victory in 2000.  The claim (however dubious) was that Clinton had broken the law and that the Constitutional standards had been met for him to be removed. 

But O’Reilly is not trying to take down one man with his attack on Holder. In essence, he is trying to take down the American form of government and its carefully developed system of checks and balances, or at least to set it aside when it threatens to do something he doesn’t agree with.  Like the entire right-wing pundit class, he is trying to make the rule of law subordinate to neo-conservative ideology.

Unfortunately, though, it’s not just the right which is guilty of this sin of “ideology over polity.” There are people on all sides of the political spectrum who are so certain that they are right that they think the rule of law should be suspended, if need be, to uphold their agenda.  As a result, we see less faith placed in our form of government and more faith placed in individuals and movements. This misplaced trust makes us vulnerable to the rise of tyranny.

Which is why we should vigorously resist arguments like O’Reilly’s at every turn.  We should insist that the rule of law and the time-honored structures of our government be upheld, even when - no, especially when - that means our own personal agendas must be subordinated.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::     ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: