Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
By that standard, is the failure of Russia to nuke the USA in response to US action a condoning of US action?
In order for the Judicial branch to say "no" to the executive branch, they need a case brought before them. And, to quote the asshole on your 20$ bill, "the supreme court has made it's decision. Now let them enforce it" in response to Andrew Jackson's plans to commit genocide on the Native Americans living on land the Andrew Jackson wanted for white people.
Similarly, in order for the Congress to censure the President, they have to impeach the president. This is a long, drawn-out process that requires a large amount of resources and time. Can the President not be guilty of being an idiot, an asshole, or a fuck up without the implicit consent of congress unless congress impeaches the president every time the President does something wrong?
Under that kind of logic, I hold you personally responsible for every act I do. You could come up here and prevent my action (sure, you don't know where I live -- but you could spend lots of money finding it out, I'm not untrackable).
|
Not correct. We don't have a legal relationship with each other as the President and the other branches have a constitutionally defined relationship. Abetter way to look at it is - if you had authority to do stuff, but I had authority of the money you needed to do it, you would not be able to do anything that involved real money without my involvement. If you lie or engage in defrauding others to be able to do stuff, then you should be held accountable for that. So, in that regard, if a President does act "unilaterally", I would expect that he would be held accountable by the other branches of government. I understand the problem of timing in our system, however, unless the President is actually doing the torture, launching a nuclear bomb, etc, he has to have complicity in his decision. If I were a general and the President asked me to launch a nuclear bomb and I felt it was the wrong thing to do, I would not do it. Congress is involved in selecting people who would be in position to execute those kinds of orders.
Quote:
It's a complete abdication of any responsibility for any action whatsoever, as far as I can tell.
Similarly, guess what happens if the President says "go and do X", and you don't do X? You, personally, are pretty much fucked.
|
I disagree. The people who stood up against Nixon were not "fucked". There are many other examples of heroic Americans who stand strong for what they think is right. Sometimes you have to accept the consequences for your views. Regarding the Iraq, war I think Collen Powell paid a price for disagreeing with the Administration, agree or disagree with him I don't perceive Powell as being "fucked".
Quote:
|
The President has made it clear that if you obstruct his choices, he'll fire you and ruin your career. So when the President tells you to do something that seems merely questionable, and doesn't want to here "but, that's dumb", you can either quit your job, ruin your life, or do the merely questionable act.
|
Quiting a job does not equate to ruining your life. You present a false choice.
Also, the thing about Bush is everyone knew his views. You can not realistically suggest that anyone was surprised by anything Bush has done. For example the guy said he was going to do everything in his power to go after terrorists. What did people think that was going to mean? What it meant to me was that he was going to tap phones, he was going employ extreme investigation techniques (i.e. - water boarding, which was not defined as torture when it was being employed), etc, etc, he was going to push the limits do things that the average person might feel uncomfortable about. So, if you were in the CIA or a guy like Gonzales and you hear the Presidents words, what are you going to do? If you are in Congress and you hear those words, what are you going to do? Well we know. Congress did nothing initially but give Bush the authority and money to execute his war. When the politics of it got uncomfortable some in Congress said - oh that was all Bush - we did not know he would...- Bush acted "unilaterally"-etc., etc. I say that was and is BS.
Quote:
|
Under your standard, the fact that 1000s of people are willing to do what the President tells them to do, even if the act seems questionable to them, means that they collectively are responsible for the President's decisions?
|
If you have a responsibility and you don't act that is being complicit in my view. If you don't have a responsibility and you don't act, then you are a bystander, or a potential victim.
I would not risk being a victim and I would act, what would you do? If I felt a President was going to execute an illegal war, I would put a lot of effort into organizing people to protest, stand-up against it, use whatever power/influence I had to stop it. I had respect for the people who did that with the Iraq war, even though I disagreed with them. That is what makes this country great. On the other hand, we have people like John Kerry, who was for the war and against it at the same time. Gee, give me a break.
Quote:
|
Remember: the President doesn't say "here is what is going on. Here is what I think will happen. Thus, I think you should do X. Do you concur?" The President is expected to have access to information that you don't have -- in theory, that information might be sufficiently sensitive that you _shouldn't_ know it, even if things are working fine. So sure, it might be a bad idea to invade Iraq without a good reconstruction plan -- but you are the General in charge of the invasion, and you don't have the time to make sure that the President is doing the job. Barring your invasion orders being utterly idiotic on their face, with no possible way to make them not-stupid, you presume the President has delt with the other problems outside of your domain.
|
I would not presume anything. I would question the President until I was satisfied that the decision was correct. I don't think I am unique in that regard.
Quote:
And that holds for lots of people. Maybe a handful know the entire plan -- and they have raised their objections asto why it is wrong, but their job is to advise the President, not override the President. Even if they quit, they aren't legally allowed to go off and tell other people that the President is being an idiot.
I don't get it. Do I just misunderstand your position?
|
I just think we see issues in a totally different way. I am often amazed by how different two people can see an issue. I believe you are very sincere in how you see this, and I find it very interesting. I doubt we could ever reconcile our different points of view on this. I understand your words and I think you understand mine, your reaction to my words is like "you must be kidding?" My reaction to your words are the same.