Bush Has Crossed the Rubicon

[Nbadan]

Bush Has Crossed the Rubicon
By Paul Craig Roberts


01/16/06 -- -- Dictatorships seldom appear full-fledged but emerge piecemeal. When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon with one Roman legion he broke the tradition that protected the civilian government from victorious generals and launched the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. Fearing that Caesar would become a king, the Senate assassinated him. From the civil wars that followed, Caesar’s grandnephew, Octavian, emerged as the first Roman emperor, Caesar Augustus.

Two thousand years later in Germany, Adolf Hitler’s rise to dictator from his appointment as chancellor was rapid. Hitler used the Reichstag fire to create an atmosphere of crisis. Both the judicial and legislative branches of government collapsed, and Hitler’s decrees became law. The Decree for the Protection of People and State (Feb. 28, 1933) suspended guarantees of personal liberty and permitted arrest and incarceration without trial. The Enabling Act (March 23, 1933) transferred legislative power to Hitler, permitting him to decree laws, laws moreover that "may deviate from the Constitution."

The dictatorship of the Roman emperors was not based on an ideology. The Nazis had an ideology of sorts, but Hitler’s dictatorship was largely personal and agenda-based. The dictatorship that emerged from the Bolshevik Revolution was based in ideology. Lenin declared that the Communist Party’s dictatorship over the Russian people rests "directly on force, not limited by anything, not restricted by any laws, nor any absolute rules." Stalin’s dictatorship over the Communist Party was based on coercion alone, unrestrained by any limitations or inhibitions.

In this first decade of the 21st century the United States regards itself as a land of democracy and civil liberty but, in fact, is an incipient dictatorship. Ideology plays only a limited role in the emerging dictatorship. The demise of American democracy is largely the result of historical developments.

Lincoln was the first American tyrant. Lincoln justified his tyranny in the name of preserving the Union. His extra-legal, extra-constitutional methods were tolerated in order to suppress Northern opposition to Lincoln’s war against the Southern secession.

The first major lasting assault on the US Constitution’s separation of powers, which is the basis for our political system, came with the response of the Roosevelt administration to the crisis of the Great Depression. The New Deal resulted in Congress delegating its legislative powers to the executive branch. Today when Congress passes a statute it is little more than an authorization for an executive agency to make the law by writing the regulations that implement it.

Prior to the New Deal, legislation was tightly written to minimize any executive branch interpretation. Only in this way can law be accountable to the people. If the executive branch that enforces the law also writes the law, "all legislative powers" are no longer vested in elected representatives in Congress. The Constitution is violated, and the separation of powers is breached.

The principle that power delegated to Congress by the people cannot be delegated by Congress to the executive branch is the mainstay of our political system. Until President Roosevelt overturned this principle by threatening to pack the Supreme Court, the executive branch had no role in interpreting the law. As Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote: "That congress cannot delegate legislative power to the president is a principle universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution."

Despite seven decades of an imperial presidency that has risen from the New Deal’s breach of the separation of powers, Republican attorneys, who constitute the membership of the quarter-century-old Federalist Society, the candidate group for Republican nominees to federal judgeships, write tracts about the Imperial Congress and the Imperial Judiciary that are briefs for concentrating more power in the executive. Federalist Society members pretend that Congress and the Judiciary have stolen all the power and run away with it.

The Republican interest in strengthening executive power has its origin in frustration from the constraints placed on Republican administrations by Democratic congresses. The thrust to enlarge the President’s powers predates the Bush administration but is being furthered to a dangerous extent during Bush’s second term. The confirmation of Bush’s nominee, Samuel Alito, a member of the Federalist Society, to the Supreme Court will provide five votes in favor of enlarged presidential powers.

President Bush has used "signing statements" hundreds of times to vitiate the meaning of statutes passed by Congress. In effect, Bush is vetoing the bills he signs into law by asserting unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to bypass or set aside the laws he signs. For example, Bush has asserted that he has the power to ignore the McCain amendment against torture, to ignore the law that requires a warrant to spy on Americans, to ignore the prohibition against indefinite detention without charges or trial, and to ignore the Geneva Conventions to which the US is signatory.

In effect, Bush is asserting the powers that accrued to Hitler in 1933. His Federalist Society apologists and Department of Justice appointees claim that President Bush has the same power to interpret the Constitution as the Supreme Court. An Alito Court is likely to agree with this false claim.

This is the great issue that is before the country. But it is pushed into the background by political battles over abortion and homosexual rights. Many people fighting to strengthen the executive think they are fighting against legitimizing sodomy and murder in the womb. They are unaware that the real issue is that America is on the verge of elevating its president above the law.

Bush Justice Department official and Berkeley law professor John Yoo argues that no law can restrict the president in his role as commander-in-chief. Thus, once the president is at war – even a vague open-ended "war on terror" – Bush’s Justice Department says the president is free to undertake any action in pursuit of war, including the torture of children and indefinite detention of American citizens.

The commander-in-chief role is probably sufficiently elastic to expand to any crisis, whether real or fabricated. Thus has the US arrived at the verge of dictatorship.

This development has little to do with Bush, who is unlikely to be aware that the Constitution is experiencing its final rending on his watch. America’s descent into dictatorship is the result of historical developments and of old political battles dating back to President Nixon being driven from office by a Democratic Congress.

There is today no constitutional party. Both political parties, most constitutional lawyers, and the bar associations are willing to set aside the Constitution whenever it interferes with their agendas. Americans have forgotten the prerequisites for freedom, and those pursuing power have forgotten what it means when it falls into other hands. Americans are very close to losing their constitutional system and civil liberties. It is paradoxical that American democracy is the likely casualty of a "war on terror" that is being justified in the name of the expansion of democracy.

Information Clearinghouse (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11578.htm)

Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

[Oh, Gee!!]

but clinton got a blowjob....in the oval office, commie.

[Mr. Peabody]

So would you rather have Bush in office or Hitler in power? I thought so.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Would you rather be a mute or a yute? Figures

[Jamtas#2]

well, if he is able to crush that term limit thing, I'll agree with you.

As far as the Geneva Convention thing goes, what part has he violated?

[Mr. Peabody]

well, if he is able to crush that term limit thing, I'll agree with you.

As far as the Geneva Convention thing goes, what part has he violated?

While I don't know whether the President has violated the Geneva Convention, some officials his administration have.

U.S.: Pentagon Acknowledges Some Prison Abuse Violates Geneva Conventions

By Charles Recknagel


(file photo)

The Pentagon yesterday acknowledged that some of the abuse of Iraqis at Baghdad's Abu Ghurayb prison was in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The acknowledgement adds fuel to a growing debate in the United States over the extent to which the U.S. administration has loosened observance of the Geneva Conventions to pursue terrorists and whether that may have confused operating procedures in Iraq.



Prague, 14 May 2004 (RFE/RL) -- One of the most sensitive issues raised by the abuse scandal at Abu Ghurayb is whether U.S. interrogation practices violate the Geneva Convention governing the treatment of war prisoners.

That question was at center-stage yesterday as U.S. senators questioned the second-ranking civilian administrator for the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz. Jack Reed, a senator from the Democratic Party, asked the deputy defense secretary whether he considered hooding prisoners and depriving them of sleep to be "humane."

In highly charged and testy exchanges, Reed asked, "Seventy-two hours without regular sleep, sensory deprivation, which would be a bag over your head for 72 hours -- do you think that's humane?" Pressed repeatedly to answer, Wolfowitz responded. "I believe it's not humane," Wolfowitz said. "It strikes me as not humane."

At issue now is the extent to which the precedent established at Guantanamo Bay may have influenced procedures in Iraq.Reed then asked another top Pentagon official, General Peter Pace, whether such interrogation techniques violate the Geneva Conventions. Specifically, the senator asked the general how he would view a foreign nation holding a U.S. soldier in a cell, naked with a bag over his head and squatting with his arms lifted for 45 minutes. Would that be a good interrogation technique or a Geneva Convention violation? General Pace answered, "I would describe it as a violation, sir."

The testimony was highly charged because it went to the heart of what for some lawmakers is the central concern in the Abu Ghurayb scandal. The concern is that the U.S. government must not only find and punish the individual soldiers guilty of abuse. It must also determine whether the abuses resulted in part from a larger, systemic disregard for human rights within the military that now needs to be corrected.

The possibility of "systemic" problems has been debated in Washington ever since the pictures of some soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners emerged late last month. The pictures depict hooded prisoners forced to assume sexually humiliating poses by their smiling captors.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has consistently said that the Pentagon is observing the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and that the abuses are the acts of a few aberrant soldiers. He restated that position yesterday as he made a surprise visit to Abu Ghurayb on a one-day trip to Baghdad. "The United States government announced with respect to Iraq that the Geneva Conventions -- Articles 3 and 4 -- apply for the Iraqi prisoners or war and apply for the civilian non-military detainees," Rumsfeld said. "That has been the case from the beginning."

He continued: "And all of the orders and instructions that I have seen or that I know about say that. People are trained in that, supposedly. Full stop. Therefore, anyone who is running around saying the Geneva Convention did not apply in Iraq is either terribly uninformed or mischievous. In either case it is harmful to the country."

But Rumsfeld's assertions have drawn fire in Washington because they come as congressional hearings reveal that some interrogation practices approved by the Pentagon involve the use of threatening, disruptive, and stressful procedures. The U.S. daily "The Washington Post" reported that the approved list of practices identifies two categories of measures, one approved for all detainees, the other requiring special authorization from senior commanders. The papers says, "among the items in the second category are 'sensory deprivation, stress positions, and dietary manipulation (and) forced changes in sleep patterns.'"

Many human rights groups have called those sorts of procedures violations of the Geneva Conventions. The conventions, which date to the 1920s and have since been signed by almost all nations, prescribe how prisoners of war should be treated by captors. The state in part that "no physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them."

David Roth, the executive director of New York-based Human Rights Watch, recently criticized U.S. interrogation techniques in Iraq. He said that "international law and domestic law are absolutely clear: You can never torture a detainee regardless of the circumstances, even in the midst of a war. Similarly, you can never engage in cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment."

Some opinion makers debating the Abu Ghurayb scandal are asking whether -- in the wake of 11 September -- the U.S. administration sent confusing signals to the military when it loosened its observation of the Geneva Conventions in the interest of extracting information from terrorist suspects.

"The Washington Post" said in an editorial early this month that the Abu Ghurayb abuses "can be traced, in part, to policy decisions and public statements" by Rumsfeld. The editorial adds, "beginning more than two years ago, Mr. Rumsfeld decided to overturn decades of previous practice by the U.S. military in its handling of detainees in foreign countries."

The Pentagon determined that terrorist suspects captured in Afghanistan could be detained off U.S. territory at a U.S. military base in Cuba and deprived of rights under the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld said at the time that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay would be treated "for the most part" in "a manner that is reasonably consistent" with the conventions.

At issue now is the extent to which the precedent established at Guantanamo Bay may have influenced procedures in Iraq. A recent report on the abuses at Abu Ghurayb by U.S. Army General Antonio Taguba says that guards at Abu Ghurayb were not instructed on the convention provisions and that no copies of them were posted in the facility.

In the days ahead, there is likely to be much more attention paid to the question of whether the U.S. military today is doing enough to assure soldiers in Iraq follow the Geneva Conventions, and to whether the abuse was more widespread than already reported.

[Vashner]

Stupid fucking assholes... he's trying to defend the country..

At least now you know fucking asshole Kerry and Gore would of just sat on there ass
not using military, NSA or CIA...


Proves the point you liberials are a bunch of useless pussies that if left in charge would do nothing to upset the "rights" of terrorists to plot and execute more attacks.

Yea you would be like Clinton not even visiting or giving a fuck about the 1st WTC attack...

Bunch of fucking pathetic loosers.

[FromWayDowntown]

I find it terribly ironic that a President who justifies fighting terrorists on the basis that "they hate our freedoms" (an original justification for fighting terrorism in the immediate aftermath of September 11) is perfectly willing to circumscribe the freedoms and civil liberties of his own "subjects" -- indeed, demands that no constitutional concern exists, despite well-established principles of law to the contrary -- in justifying his actions in prosecuting that fight.

Essentially, the White House takes the position that the American people should be willing to concede certain freedoms in an effort to defeat terrorists who hate us for those freedoms.

Indeed, the President, on more than one occasion, has suggested that relenting in our freedoms aids the terrorists in their campaign.

If we should now be willing to have our freedoms limited in the name of prosecuting a war on terror, doesn't that make the terrorists winners?

[Vashner]

I find it terribly ironic that a President who justifies fighting terrorists on the basis that "they hate our freedoms" (an original justification for fighting terrorism in the immediate aftermath of September 11) is perfectly willing to circumscribe the freedoms and civil liberties of his own "subjects" -- indeed, demands that no constitutional concern exists, despite well-established principles of law to the contrary -- in justifying his actions in prosecuting that fight.

Essentially, the White House takes the position that the American people should be willing to concede certain freedoms in an effort to defeat terrorists who hate us for those freedoms.

Doesn't that make the terrorists winners?
Complete bullshit leftist talking point crap here...

EVERY president has had piles of secret's. Clinton and Jimmy Carter did classified shit that would embarass them if leaked.

Bush signed off on a NSA list to spy on suspected terrorists...

He promised survivors he would do whatever it takes....

Now you know the other party would not have.

[Nbadan]

If we should now be willing to have our freedoms limited in the name of prosecuting a war on terror, doesn't that make the terrorists winners?

Oh, oh. Republicans hate paradoxes almost as much as irony.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Stupid fucking assholes... he's trying to defend the country..

At least now you know fucking asshole Kerry and Gore would of just sat on there ass
not using military, NSA or CIA...


Proves the point you liberials are a bunch of useless pussies that if left in charge would do nothing to upset the "rights" of terrorists to plot and execute more attacks.

Yea you would be like Clinton not even visiting or giving a fuck about the 1st WTC attack...

Bunch of fucking pathetic loosers.


total right-wing bullshit propaganda

[Mr. Peabody]

Stupid fucking assholes... he's trying to defend the country..

Bunch of fucking pathetic loosers.

1. He may be trying to protect the country, but he is still exceeding his authority with some of his actions.

2. What is a "looser?"

[spurster]

He promised survivors he would do whatever it takes....

Now you know the other party would not have.
I interpret that as a recommendation for the other party.

[Oh, Gee!!]

What is a "looser?"

someone that doesn't drink beer and kick ass.

[Ocotillo]

Why don't you go change your pants now Vashner. I know the mean old terrorists have you quivering in front of your keyboard.

Typical right wing chicken hawk. Too scared to enlist, too scared to have freedom. You want others to fight your fight for you.

Of course, what is the point in fighting for this country if you don't believe what it stands for.

Coward.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You bastard, Vashner can't type. He lost the ability to type after twisting off a non-twistable bottlecap during the Grenada conflict. God bless him.

[mikejones99]

USA is going after IRAN before the elections soon. Ray Taliaferro first reported this last night and he is correct about 98%. Go Spurs, this maybe the last title anyone wins ever.

[Mr. Peabody]

someone that doesn't drink beer and kick ass.

Damn! I only drink wine and file formal complaints. :depressed

[xrayzebra]

Why don't you go change your pants now Vashner. I know the mean old terrorists have you quivering in front of your keyboard.

Typical right wing chicken hawk. Too scared to enlist, too scared to have freedom. You want others to fight your fight for you.

Of course, what is the point in fighting for this country if you don't believe what it stands for.

Coward.

And you are an over educated twerp. How many wars have you fought?
What do you want some mushroom cloud over a city of the US to prove a
point. You need to go read the constitution with something other than
a jaundice eye.

Terrorist do have me quivering in fear. Fear of what they are willing to
sacrifice to gain their end. Fear of seeing my children, grandchildren and
others die because of people like you. I believe you stated that you had
a graduate student do something or other. Does that mean you teach
you dumb ass leanings to your students? Damn, people like you sicken me.

[Oh, Gee!!]

yeah, you pencil-neck. Xray, was liberating us from the Vietnamese when you were popping pimples and jerking off to your mother's Sears Catalogues.

[Mr. Peabody]

yeah, you pencil-neck. Xray, was liberating us from the Vietnamese when you were popping pimples and jerking off to your mother's Sears Catalogues.

I didn't realize that we needed to be liberated from the Vietnamese.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I didn't realize that we needed to be liberated from the Vietnamese.

Isn't that the old song-and-dance? We send our troops overseas to keep us free, right? That's why our troops are in Iraq right now, they're ensuring our freedom (or so I've been told by FOXNews).

[Ocotillo]

Actually I am a vet from a military family. I only served four years and since I was in the Air Force in the 70s I never saw combat.

I don't have a problem with the government wiretapping terror suspects foreign and domestic. I do have a problem with the executive branch doing it without a check from one of the other two branches of the government. In this case there is a FISA court that the executive branch has up to 72 hours after they have tapped whoever they want to tap to get the warrant. That is more than generous and it offers us the protections from one branch gaining too much power.

Without the warrant, we have no idea who Bush is monitoring. None. He have to take him for his word. I don't trust the guy and if Hillary were to be elected in '08 I doubt most of you who support the Bush administration's right to do this would be too happy with Hillary able to wiretap whoever she wanted and say she was doing it on a limited basis with people who are taking calls from Al Qaeda.

Like every American whether they be liberal or conservative, I want the terrorists destroyed. We can prevail while maintaining the same freedoms that have served us well for over 200 years. All the critics are saying (and there are critics of this policy from both parties) is follow the law and get the warrant. Listen all you want as long as a judge says you do have a good reason too.

[Mr. Peabody]

Isn't that the old song-and-dance? We send our troops overseas to keep us free, right? That's why our troops are in Iraq right now, they're ensuring our freedom (or so I've been told by FOXNews).

Oh, Gee!!, I don't agree with your statement, but I will slaughter as many foreigners as it takes to protect your right to say it.

[hendrix]

Oh, Gee!!, I don't agree with your statement, but I will slaughter as many foreigners as it takes to protect your right to say it.

:depressed

[smeagol]

:depressed
Sarcasm (Mr Peabody is good at it)

[Vashner]

If your nuts was a small hill.. Bush climbed it with his saudi juice burning 4x4 F350 and crushed your barbie doll collecting nuts like a redneck sucking down a half warm can of Natual Light....

[Guru of Nothing]

And you are an over educated twerp. How many wars have you fought?
What do you want some mushroom cloud over a city of the US to prove a
point. You need to go read the constitution with something other than
a jaundice eye.

Terrorist do have me quivering in fear. Fear of what they are willing to
sacrifice to gain their end. Fear of seeing my children, grandchildren and
others die because of people like you. I believe you stated that you had
a graduate student do something or other. Does that mean you teach
you dumb ass leanings to your students? Damn, people like you sicken me.

Don't you think we should be in North Korea, RIGHT NOW, proliferatin' some good ol' American kick-ass?

[gtownspur]

I find it terribly ironic that a President who justifies fighting terrorists on the basis that "they hate our freedoms" (an original justification for fighting terrorism in the immediate aftermath of September 11) is perfectly willing to circumscribe the freedoms and civil liberties of his own "subjects" -- indeed, demands that no constitutional concern exists, despite well-established principles of law to the contrary -- in justifying his actions in prosecuting that fight. [/QOUTE]

You see this is the part where everyone left to having a mechanized Michael Moore figured vibrator say, "WTF". That's not only Bush's consensus, but the whole populace. ANd as a general rule, one has to awnser the question of why the terrorist attacked us. Is it becuase we are a giant capatilist pig stye of a nation that promotes haliburton over sharia law? Is it solely because we support Israel, is it because George Bush is der leader?

Then in all honesty, what makes alqueda different from you? Oh,.. "that i didn't kill those innocent civillians nor am i making any justifiications for it", is that the only difference. That even though many innocent people fell that day, you in your hateful blinded soul wish to extract all reasonable doubt of your own biases and not take for granted that the real reason was for our freedoms? But it is as plain as day. The fact that osama issued many warnings in the early 90's of how he wanted to end western democracy because of our lifestyle, our rampant homosexual component in our societies, our materialism, and moral decay, religion, etc, still escapes your feeble brain. And i for being a very nice man myself will let you slide on your own stupidity and assume you did what any sheep liberal would do, selectively read the major news media, and stick only with the Nation magazine, and anit war/anti fill in the blank/ boho fest of a pro palestinian march flyers to feed your malnourished diet of political issues.

You're really a joke are you? WTf, did you think alqueda flew the planes in for? Because of pat robertsons insistence that we adopt intelligent design in our schools, or that bush instituted tax cuts for the wealthy?

But i guess i can see where you gonna head with this....straight to ass land, or drum up a diatribe of how we have pilllaged the muslim world through capitalism. What's ironic is the phrase muslim world and pillage. The fact that anyone would suggest that its the muslim world who has been pillaged through out history would get laughed at knowing the case that Islamic history has been all about them pillaging.

So no, you wont convince anyone outside of a dairy queen shift leader that osama simply attacked us because of capitalism or anyother Noam Chomsky brain queef.
[QUOTE]
Essentially, the White House takes the position that the American people should be willing to concede certain freedoms in an effort to defeat terrorists who hate us for those freedoms.

Essentially, it's the american people who give a damn and want those acts to be enforced. That's why president bush was re elected, and that's why 85% of repugs and 60 percent of democrats agree that we should adopt strict measures and allow wiretapping.

No, but essentially all you have left is "Well, good point but.... i'm gonna play an ass for the rest of this conversation and try to criminalize bush as if he was the only one agreeing on this issue and not more than half of my countrymen,... dissent is patriotism,...blah blah blah....... we must uphold the constitution as David Corn of the Nation sees it,....even if we were to get nuked."


Indeed, the President, on more than one occasion, has suggested that relenting in our freedoms aids the terrorists in their campaign.

Oh like that one time he suggested we attend sports events, and spend money in the economy even after the 911 shock? Cuz other than that, your point's mute.



If we should now be willing to have our freedoms limited in the name of prosecuting a war on terror, doesn't that make the terrorists winners?

Yes, because although we will now not rely on our gathering methods anymore, we will have to sit around and hope AQ fucks up somehow and then we go after them. Ofcourse, till then we will still have to file a search warrant, have senate hearings and give al saddar mahatma tamale a chance to Kangaroo Airline his ass out of the country to come again..... makes for a good law and order series, but in the real world, you don't have liberal pansies in goat tees and manpurses narrarating the ending. It's real life, and if we're gonna go after AQ the same way we go after the Zodiac killer, then expect more republican presidents and electoral victories, because NY,LA and SAN FRAN, will be the first cities to be dirty bombed by OBL.

But you see, You, OH Gee-Spot, and RG will sit on the proverbial high horse and claim that you're supreme interest is not that we survive to practice the constitution, but that we go down in flames as a country and civilization because the constitution is a supreme benevolent suicide pact, and even though when it suits liberals to say that it was a white man's tool to accept slavery and oppress minorities, for the sake of looking like real concerned patriots of dissent, lets uphold the constituion shall we?

[gtownspur]

Don't you think we should be in North Korea, RIGHT NOW, proliferatin' some good ol' American kick-ass?


No, we shouldn't nor should we be up in the middle of the night upping one another on who can do the best Mo Rocca impersonation, and not contribute a damn dime to the discussion.

BUt you are the SUltan of blue balls, the King of Crud, the Prince of pussyfooting, Emperor of Emptiness, Captain of Caca, Admiral of Assinine, or Queen of Quagmire,,etc.

So nobody expected anything less.

[xrayzebra]

Don't you think we should be in North Korea, RIGHT NOW, proliferatin' some good ol' American kick-ass?

Not necessesarily, but I do know that if Clinton had done something,
besides getting a blow job and covering up the incompetency
of his administration, and the Carter had kept his nose out of things,
we may not be in such bad shape there. I think Bush has done an
exceptional job in handling the job about North Korea.

I suspect that there will be enough "good ol' American kick-ass" to satisfy
everyone before this is all over. The sad part is that some folks have a
short memory and let their absolute hate interfere with reasonable thinking
and common sense. I have said it again and will repeat it again here.
We are in a world war now. There may not be shooting and bombings by
our military but we are fighting all over the world with resources unbeknown est to everyone. I suspect that we are, right now, winning
to a degree, since there has been no more hits in this country. But
if some, as witnessed on this board, have their way will tie the hands
of our government to the point where we cant protect ourselves.

[FromWayDowntown]

gtown -- your rant is so incoherent that I won't even try to address you point by point. I'll make this sweet and simple.

I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with fighting a war against terrorists. I wholeheartedly support the efforts taking place in Afghanistan and I think our intelligence and security agencies have done remarkable work in redoubling their efforts to keep us safe. I know you cannot reconcile the notions that someone who does not support the President could actually love his country and support the war on terror, but you can trust me that I do.

The problem here isn't the President's prosecution of a war on terror -- it's his willful (indeed, blithe) ignorance of Constitutional principles during the war on terror. I have no problem with the President wiretapping in the United States, provided that he takes his requests for wiretaps to a proper authority and receives the warrants that are required by federal law and the United States Constitution. I have no problem with detention of those suspected of terrorists links, so long as those who are detained are given hearings and afforded the same protections of the law that are afforded to every other incarcerated person -- if the government can prove they are guilty of engaging in terrorism or aiding terrorists, then it would be wonderful to obtain convictions. In short, I have no problem with the President doing anything associated with this "war" so long as the Constitutional principles that are the foundation for our nation are respected and protected. When the President believes, however, that he is above the Constitution -- when he demands that the American people cede their constitutional rights in the name of his amorphous war, he defeats the very purpose of fighting that war.

Would you really want to live in an America that is completely safe from terrorism, but in which there are only limited civil rights and civil liberties? If so, I would argue that you've missed the whole point of America's existence. If we're willing to give up our Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties for a bit of peace of mind, then why are we even fighting to maintain liberty?

The President himself, on September 20, 2001, in an address to a joint session of Congress said: "Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." Surely, you can't read that and believe that he meant that terrorists hate only those freedoms. The President's argument, at the outset, was that this was a war of ideas -- a contest between those who value freedom and those who oppose freedom. Some of his actions, since that war began, however, have run contrary to that initial position. That's the point of the opinion piece that began this thread. Do you really not see that as a problem?

Again, I wonder: if we're engaged in a battle to protect the freedoms we value, doesn't it defeat that purpose for the President to trample all over those liberties in the name of fighting that war? I think it does. If you disagree with me, well then, I guess that's among the few freedoms that you believe the President meant to protect.

In short, if you believe that we should give up our freedoms (our civil liberties) in an effort to win a war aimed at protecting freedom, you've taken a position that strikes me as antithetical to everything American.

[xrayzebra]

gtown -- your rant is so incoherent that I won't even try to address you point by point. I'll make this sweet and simple.

I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with fighting a war against terrorists. I wholeheartedly support the efforts taking place in Afghanistan and I think our intelligence and security agencies have done remarkable work in redoubling their efforts to keep us safe. I know you cannot reconcile the notions that someone who does not support the President could actually love his country and support the war on terror, but you can trust me that I do.

The problem here isn't the President's prosecution of a war on terror -- it's his willful (indeed, blithe) ignorance of Constitutional principles during the war on terror. I have no problem with the President wiretapping in the United States, provided that he takes his requests for wiretaps to a proper authority and receives the warrants that are required by federal law and the United States Constitution. I have no problem with detention of those suspected of terrorists links, so long as those who are detained are given hearings and afforded the same protections of the law that are afforded to every other incarcerated person -- if the government can prove they are guilty of engaging in terrorism or aiding terrorists, then it would be wonderful to obtain convictions. In short, I have no problem with the President doing anything associated with this "war" so long as the Constitutional principles that are the foundation for our nation are respected and protected. When the President believes, however, that he is above the Constitution -- when he demands that the American people cede their constitutional rights in the name of his amorphous war, he defeats the very purpose of fighting that war.

Would you really want to live in an America that is completely safe from terrorism, but in which there are only limited civil rights and civil liberties? If so, I would argue that you've missed the whole point of America's existence. If we're willing to give up our Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties for a bit of peace of mind, then why are we even fighting to maintain liberty?

The President himself, on September 20, 2001, in an address to a joint session of Congress said: "Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." Surely, you can't read that and believe that he meant that terrorists hate only those freedoms. The President's argument, at the outset, was that this was a war of ideas -- a contest between those who value freedom and those who oppose freedom. Some of his actions, since that war began, however, have run contrary to that initial position. That's the point of the opinion piece that began this thread. Do you really not see that as a problem?

Again, I wonder: if we're engaged in a battle to protect the freedoms we value, doesn't it defeat that purpose for the President to trample all over those liberties in the name of fighting that war? I think it does. If you disagree with me, well then, I guess that's among the few freedoms that you believe the President meant to protect.


Do you really think monitoring international calls are wrong? Because
that is what this is all about. Bush is not the first President to
have calls monitored. He has not, as a recent President allowed, have
someones home entered and searched, without a warrant.

I do not consider any of my freedoms being infringed on. None.
During wartime somethings have to be done that are normal during
peacetime. Myself, along with a vast majority of Americans support
President Bush in is monitoring efforts.

[FromWayDowntown]

Do you really think monitoring international calls are wrong? Because
that is what this is all about. Bush is not the first President to
have calls monitored. He has not, as a recent President allowed, have
someones home entered and searched, without a warrant.

I do not consider any of my freedoms being infringed on. None.
During wartime somethings have to be done that are normal during
peacetime. Myself, along with a vast majority of Americans support
President Bush in is monitoring efforts.

I seriously doubt that a "vast majority" of American support extra-Constitutional monitoring.

You've also missed my point -- I have no problem with the President monitoring calls, so long as he proceeds through the proper channels and obtains the warrants that are Constitutionally required to undertake wiretaps. If there is justification for the wiretapping, there should be no difficulty in obtaining the warrant -- and the FISC provides the President with a means to obtain the warrant without public disclosure that might alert the subject of the wiretapping, while ensuring that the Constitution (and the will of Congress) is upheld.

I also think the question of protecting freedoms sometimes becomes a personal matter. I doubt that I'm the subject of any sort of wiretapping, so the concern for that -- or for the limitless detention of people, or for the violations of the Geneva Convention, among other things -- don't affect me directly. But the Constitution is intended to protect more than me. The Constitution is basically worthless -- its purpose is defeated -- if the rights of the lowest among us aren't protected. That means, to me and to many commentators, that it must protect those we dislike the most if it is to protect any of us. So it is important to me that the President uphold the Constitutional obligation to obtain a warrant if he is to engage in wiretaps on anyone; it is important to me that those who are incarcerated be charged with crimes and be afforded due process of law and protected by the rule of law.

Again, it's a troubling turn of events if the President can ignore those aspects of Constitutional freedom on a willy-nilly basis. It's not a long step from ignoring those protections to ignoring other Constitutional mandates; after all, the justifications would be the same, even though the provision in question would be different.

Assuming that the President has the right to limit Constitutional rights in a time of war -- something I don't think is within the contemplation of the document -- how far does that right go? Can the President declare that it would make prosecution of the war difficult if he had to give up his office after two terms? Can the President decide that First Amendment rights can be curtailed -- the right to peacably assemble? the right to petition government? the freedom of the press?

Basically, that's the problem in my mind. If the President can disregard the Fourth Amendment, why does he have to obey any other Amendment or Constitutional provision if he believes ignorance will make it easier to prosecute the war? I'm actually interested to hear an intelligent response to those questions.