Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Decker on October 23, 2007, 10:58:57 AM
-
Here are some excerpts from a law professor's book. I added some paranthetical stuff.
"a savvy pro-war party may successfully employ humanitarian talk both to gull the wider public and to silence potential critics on the liberal side"
(Invade Iraq to save the Iraqis from Hussein—a humanitarian effort)
“Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden represented two 'branches' of an essentially homogeneous extremism" (p. 181). Berman, Holmes points out, conflated anti-terrorism with anti-fascism in order to provide a foundation for the neologism "Islamo-fascism."”
(a common enemy, like the Russians)
“…democratization at the point of an assault rifle become America's mission in the world…”
(if the Iraqis survive our invasion/occupation, they’ll thank us)
“…if you want to suppress domestic questioning of foreign military adventures, then eliminate the draft, create an all-volunteer force, reduce domestic taxes, and maintain a false prosperity based on foreign borrowing…”
(keep the public/herd fat yet cowed)
“…we battle lawlessness with lawlessness (for example, by torturing prisoners) and concentrate extra-Constitutional authority in the hands of the president…”
(Dictatorships work b/c the rule of law is not as responsive as the rule of one)
“In this final section, Holmes puts on his hat as the law professor he is and takes on … Berkeley law professor John Yoo, who authored the "torture memos"..., denied the legality of the Geneva Conventions, and elaborated a grandiose view of the President's war-making power. Holmes wonders, "Why would an aspiring legal scholar labor for years to develop and defend a historical thesis that is manifestly untrue? What is the point and what is the payoff? That is the principal mystery of Yoo's singular book. Characteristic of The Powers of War and Peace is the anemic relations between the evidence adduced and the inferences drawn"”
(Bush sought the thinnest color of law in executing some of his abominations—torture, Iraq, spying on Americans, etc.)
Holmes’s…conclusion on Yoo and his fellow neocons is devastating: "If the misbegotten Iraq war proves anything, it is the foolhardiness of allowing an autistic clique that reads its own newspapers and watches its own cable news channel to decide, without outsider input, where to expend American blood and treasure - that is, to decide which looming threats to stress and which to downplay or ignore"
(the insular & uncritical echo-chamber of Rightwing politics)
"[L]aw is best understood," he writes, "not as a set of rigid rules but rather as a set of institutional mechanisms and procedures designed to correct the mistakes that even exceptionally talented executive officials are bound to make and to facilitate midstream readjustments and course corrections. If we understand law, constitutionalism, and due process in this way, then it becomes obvious why the war on terrorism is bound to fail when conducted, as it has been so far, against the rule of law and outside the constitutional system of checks and balances"
"By dismantling checks and balances, along the lines idealized and celebrated by [John] Yoo, the administration has certainly gained flexibility in the 'war on terror.' It has gained the flexibility, in particular, to shoot first and aim afterward"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_102207F.shtml
-
Oh phooey. What does he know? :) Overstated and overdramatized from start to finish, particularly the "dismantling checks and balances" line. That's absurd.
-
Oh phooey. What does he know? :) Overstated and overdramatized from start to finish, particularly the "dismantling checks and balances" line. That's absurd.
Thanks to John Yoo and Alberto Gonzalez, Pres. Bush assumed war time powers, unchecked powers, not in the constitution or in our country's history.
Checks and balances went out the window for FISA violations (ignored the legal requirement for warrants), Guantonamo torture (conducted torture outside of US jurisdiction), and his protracted signing statements (excepted the president to the binding power of the law being signed).
If it were the 1990s and Clinton pulled that stuff and we had the Republican Congress, you could bet your bottom dollar that each of those above 3 instances would bring a vote for impeachment to the House.
The democrats just don't see the necessity for impeachment though.
-
Thanks to John Yoo and Alberto Gonzalez, Pres. Bush assumed war time powers, unchecked powers, not in the constitution or in our country's history.
Checks and balances went out the window for FISA violations (ignored the legal requirement for warrants), Guantonamo torture (conducted torture outside of US jurisdiction), and his protracted signing statements (excepted the president to the binding power of the law being signed).
If it were the 1990s and Clinton pulled that stuff and we had the Republican Congress, you could bet your bottom dollar that each of those above 3 instances would bring a vote for impeachment to the House.
The democrats just don't see the necessity for impeachment though.
Didn't the courts address these issues? Bush was checked by the U.S. Supreme Court. That's how the system should work.
I think the impeachment talk has been thrown about so much, and abused by members of Congress, that it really is much more difficult to consider that kind of talk as anything more than posturing or message board material.
-
Didn't the courts address these issues? Bush was checked by the U.S. Supreme Court. That's how the system should work.
I think the impeachment talk has been thrown about so much, and abused by members of Congress, that it really is much more difficult to consider that kind of talk as anything more than posturing or message board material.
That's never how the system worked b/c of the secret nature of the exercise of presidential power. The Bush administration undertook domestic spying and torture in secret. No other administration has done it's constitutionally questionable acts in secret.
The secrecy eliminates any true check on the power exercised. Only b/c Bush's secret criminal acts were exposed was some sort of review possible.
And it's the duty of Congress, not the Judiciary, to provide oversight of the presidential power from the outset.
-
That's never how the system worked b/c of the secret nature of the exercise of presidential power. The Bush administration undertook domestic spying and torture in secret. No other administration has done it's constitutionally questionable acts in secret.
The secrecy eliminates any true check on the power exercised. Only b/c Bush's secret criminal acts were exposed was some sort of review possible.
And it's the duty of Congress, not the Judiciary, to provide oversight of the presidential power from the outset.
Must not have been too secret if the courts ruled on the appropriateness of warrantless wiretaps.
You didn't consider Iran-Contra "constitutionally questionable"? I'm sure there are other acts presidents have done in the interests of national security that were "secret."
Congress provides oversight primarily by passing laws. The president is supposed to follow the law. The courts determine whether the law is constitutional and whether the president is indeed following the law. I see no problem with that approach. It's working.
-
I've seen both sides of it on the news.
I saw Bush gloating on the news today, almost bragging about how Congress can't touch him. The job of exec oversight DOES belong to congress - and congress is supposed to be EQUAL to the executive branch. He came off as a jerk in today's press conference. That brash, pompous talk reminded me of "Bring it on"
On the other hand, the democrats are compromised too. If they'd get on the same page for five minutes, they could present the issues of war and wiretapping in a unified front, and MAKE the republican senators up for election have to take a stand, one way or another. They'd likely cross over if there was a side to cross over to - but the Dems are fragmented.
-
Must not have been too secret if the courts ruled on the appropriateness of warrantless wiretaps.
You didn't consider Iran-Contra "constitutionally questionable"? I'm sure there are other acts presidents have done in the interests of national security that were "secret."
Congress provides oversight primarily by passing laws. The president is supposed to follow the law. The courts determine whether the law is constitutional and whether the president is indeed following the law. I see no problem with that approach. It's working.
You're right, Iran/Contra was a secret war. Only the temperment of the Independent Investigator saved the Reagan administration from impeachment...considerin g the country just went through an impeachment a decade earlier he did not want to put the country through that again. Some restraint hey? I wish the republicans would have put the country first instead embarking on the Clinton fiaso.
No the checks and balances did not work. Bush kept the US's torture policy and domestic spying secret from the Congress. Only after the programs were leaked did Bush consult with Congress and that was so that he could have retroactive immunity from obvious abuses of power.
How do you figure the Courts were in on FISA when Bush ignored getting warrants from the secret court? Your assertion makes no sense. The center of the case against Bush's domestic spying was that he ignored the secret court for getting a warrant and did not consult Congress on doing so, ie, he didn't ask for the law to be changed, he just ignored it and consequently committed a felony.
The Congress makes the law. The president enforces the law. The Judiciary interprets the law.
Congress provides oversight of the executive by, among other things, holding the purse strings of the country.
The Bush and Reagan abuses of power were done in secret. Lincoln didn't abolish Habeus Corpus in secret. Truman didn't order the US takeover of US steel plants in secret.
Surely you can see the difference.
-
You're right, Iran/Contra was a secret war. Only the temperment of the Independent Investigator saved the Reagan administration from impeachment...considerin g the country just went through an impeachment a decade earlier he did not want to put the country through that again. Some restraint hey? I wish the republicans would have put the country first instead embarking on the Clinton fiaso.
No the checks and balances did not work. Bush kept the US's torture policy and domestic spying secret from the Congress. Only after the programs were leaked did Bush consult with Congress and that was so that he could have retroactive immunity from obvious abuses of power.
How do you figure the Courts were in on FISA when Bush ignored getting warrants from the secret court? Your assertion makes no sense. The center of the case against Bush's domestic spying was that he ignored the secret court for getting a warrant and did not consult Congress on doing so, ie, he didn't ask for the law to be changed, he just ignored it and consequently committed a felony.
The Congress makes the law. The president enforces the law. The Judiciary interprets the law.
Congress provides oversight of the executive by, among other things, holding the purse strings of the country.
The Bush and Reagan abuses of power were done in secret. Lincoln didn't abolish Habeus Corpus in secret. Truman didn't order the US takeover of US steel plants in secret.
Surely you can see the difference.
I'm sure there is plenty that presidents do in the interests of national security that is "secret."
The fact is warrantless wiretaps were deemed unconstitutional by the federal courts, which means the president was checked by the judiciary. There goes the "checks and balances" argument.
The other fact is Congress endorsed the removal of habeas corpus for unlawful alien enemy combatants, so the abuse or power argument really doesn't hold much water (so to speak). Denying access to the federal courts for foreign terrorists does not bother me.