|
|
考研英语阅读题源来源广泛，取自《经济学人》、《纽约时报》、《新闻周刊》、《卫报》、《Nature》、《华盛顿邮报》、《The Scientist》等等【了解更多题源】，因此考生可以多关注一下此类文章。下面新东方在线分享一些考过的题源文章，并附上详细解析，本阶段复习，大家可以看看。
From The New York Times
By Anonymous
Nov. 11, 2007
Abdicate and Capitulate
It is extraordinary how President Bush has streamlined the Senate
confirmation process. As we have seen most recently with the vote to confirm
Michael Mukasey as attorney general, about all that is left of "advice and
consent" is the "consent" part.
Once upon a time, the confirmation of major presidential appointments
played out on several levels-starting, of course, with politics. It was assumed
that a president would choose like-minded people as cabinet members and for
other jobs requiring Senate approval. There was a presumption that he should be
allowed his choices, all other things being equal.
Before George W. Bush's presidency, those other things actually counted.
Was the nominee truly qualified, with a professional background worthy of the
job? Would he discharge his duties fairly and honorably, upholding his oath to
protect the Constitution? Even though he answers to the president, would the
nominee represent all Americans? Would he or she respect the power of Congress
to supervise the executive branch, and the power of the courts to enforce the
rule of law?
In less than seven years, Mr. Bush has managed to boil that list down to
its least common denominator: the president should get his choices. At first,
Mr. Bush was abetted by a slavish Republican majority that balked at only one
major appointment-Harriet Miers for Supreme Court justice, and then only because
of doubts that she was far enough to the right.
The Democrats, however, also deserve a large measure of blame. They did
almost nothing
while they were in the minority to demand better nominees than Mt. Bush was
sending up. And now that they have attained the majority, they are not doing any
better.
On Thursday, the Senate voted by 53 to 40 to confirm Mr. Mukasey even
though he would not answer a simple question: does he think waterboarding, a
form of simulated drowning used to extract information from a prisoner, is
torture and therefore illegal?
Democrats offer excuses for their sorry record, starting with their
razor-thin majority. But it is often said that any vote in the Senate requires
more than 60 votes-enough to overcome a filibuster. So why did Mr. Mukaey get by
with only 53 votes? Given the success the Republicans have had in blocking
action when the Democrats cannot muster 60 votes, the main culprit appears to be
the Democratic leadership, which seems uninterested in or incapable of standing
up to Mr. Bush.
Senator Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat who turned the tide for this
nomination, said that if the Senate did not approve Mr. Mukasey, the president
would get by with an interim appointment who would be under the sway of "the
extreme ideology of Vice President Dick Cheney". He argued that Mr. Mukasey
could be counted on to reverse the politicization of the Justice Department that
occurred under Alberto Gonzales, and that Mr. Mukasey’s reticence about calling
waterboarding illegal might well become moot, because the Senate was considering
a law making clear that it is illegal.
That is precisely the sort of cozy rationalization that Mr. Schumer and his
colleagues have used so many times to back down from a confrontation with Mr.
Bush. The truth is, Mr. Mukasey is already in the grip of that "extreme
ideology". If he were not, he could have answered the question about
waterboarding.
Mr. Bush said Mr. Mukasey could not do so because it would reveal
classified information about Central Intelligence Agency interrogation
techniques. That is nonsense. Mr. Mukasey was not asked if CIA jailers have used
waterboarding on prisoners, something he could be expected to know nothing
about. He was simply asked if ,as a general matter, waterboarding is
illegal.
It was not a difficult question. Waterboarding is specifically banned by
the Army Field Manual, and it is plainly illegal under the federal Anti-Torture
Act, federal assault statutes, the Detainee Treatment Act, the Convention
against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. It is hard to see how any nominee
worthy of the position of attorney general could fail to answer "yes".
The real reason the White House would not permit Mr. Mukasey to answer was
the risk to federal officials who carried out Mr. Bush's orders to abuse and
torture prisoners after the 9/11 attacks: the tight answer could have exposed
them to criminal sanctions.
The rationales that accompanied the vote in favor of Mr. Mukasey were not
reassuring. The promise of a law banning waterboarding is no comfort. It is
unnecessary, and even if it passes, Mr. Bush seems certain to veto it. In fact,
it would play into the administration's hands by allowing it to argue that
torture is not currently illegal.
The claim that Mr. Mukasey will depoliticize the Justice Department loses
its allure when you consider that he would not commit himself to enforcing
Congressional subpoenas in the United States attorneys' scandal.
All of this leaves us wondering whether Mr. Schumer and other Democratic
leaders were more focused on the 2008 elections than on doing their
constitutional duty. Certainly being made to look weak on terrorism might make
it harder for them to expand their majority
We are not suggesting the Democrats reject every presidential appointee, or
that the president's preferences not be taken into account. But Democrats have
done precious little to avoid the kind of spectacle the world saw last week: the
Senate giving the job of attorney general, chief law enforcement officer in the
world's oldest democracy, to a man who does not even have the integrity to take
a stand against torture.
|
|
发表于 2017-8-6 16:20:35