Inciting armed overthrow of the gov? - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 05-14-2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Does "collateral damage" count?

yeah, i'd be careful also. if 'collateral damage' means one or two people, then i'd say it's not terrorism. If dozens are collaterally killed, you have to look at any response that might be forthcoming from any organization that MAY claim responsibility.

I know you are trying to refer to the US attacks and their collateral damage in the past. My opinion, the people that made those decisions to conduct such actions should be held accountable.

War is War, and sometimes, SOMETIMES, innocent deaths cannot be avoided. A tragedy for sure. It all comes down to weighing whether the death of those innocents, while achieving your target kill, will save lives in the future. example, would you have nuked berlin to kill hitler and his leadership if it would have meant saving even half of the jews killed during the holocaust?

filtherton · 05-14-2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainheart

By those standards, the United States becomes one of the largest terrorist organizations of the world.

So I'd be careful with that one.

Yeah, that's my point. It seems to me the whole point of the "shock and awe" strategy was to terrorise anybody in iraq who might have a mind to resist u.s. forces.

Elphaba · 05-14-2006, 04:55 PM

flstf

Quote:

A peaceful breakup is certainly preferable to a violent one, and I don't think we are anywhere close to this now. It will take some sort of economic collapse before people get fed up enough to really want to change things.

An economic collapse may be sooner than any of us can comprehend. This is not from the msp, but economists throughout the world are raising alarms. Give it read just the same.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article13028.htm

smooth · 05-14-2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I think if the American settlers had traveled back over to Britian and blew up some pubs and demanded that they allow the colonies to be independant, that would have been terrorism.

What if they just roamed the south and burned down British loyalists' (Tories) homes and inflicted violence on their families?

What if state sponsored pirates marauded civilian merchant vessels and disrupted the British shipping routes?

Would either of those scenarios fit your notions of what constitutes terrorism or "the use of violence against non-combat personnel/non-military personnel to achieve a political end"?

Willravel · 05-14-2006, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

and how many of the WTC victims (dead or alive) were military personnel?

Quote:

A secret CIA office was destroyed in the 11 September attack on the World Trade Center, the New York Times reports.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1637454.stm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Don't try to vindicate AQ because a few targets were military, they are a terrorist organization. Their intent is to fear the populace in to electing a government that has weak foreign policy.

Vindicate?! Hahahahaha!!! Yea, I love the al Qaeda!!! I'd like to see more of them! Osama Bin Laden is coming to my birthday!!

/end sarcasm

The al Qaeda is an organization that sees it as perfectly alright to kill anyone and destroy anything in order to push their adgenda. They are horrible, evil, and self destructive. They attack military and civilian targets alike. I'm not really sure what their intent is. I used to think it was purely anti Western BS, but I doubt it's that simple.

rainheart · 05-15-2006, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Yeah, that's my point. It seems to me the whole point of the "shock and awe" strategy was to terrorise anybody in iraq who might have a mind to resist u.s. forces.

Oh! Ok. That's funny, I was thinking making a "shock & awe" joke. Maybe not that funny. I just remembered, don't forget all the state-sponsored terrorism the U.S. sanctioned against other countries; CIA coups & Northwoods documents might make some good examples?

Regarding all that speculation about another economic collapse, you should read or listen to a series called "the wizards of money", you might find it interesting.

What are we discussing here anyways? If it's okay to use terrorist tactics against an oppressive non-democratic government? It's probably not a smart idea.

Here's a question though, if you targeted a business executive who was the head of a major conglomorate that made a non-democratic and corporatist state possible, and he was completely aware of all the terrible things he was helping make possible, would that count as terrorism?

I guess what I'm asking is what makes a target legitimate?

stevo · 05-15-2006, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Elphaba, I wanna believe, but these are just the links to May 12 news reports of the Diebold & Sequoia E-Voting equipment sham:

*snip*

This is the result of the sham "voting reform act of 2002", HAVA:

IMO, the deadline requirements for local purchasing of new E-Vote machines were intended to block competition of "start-ups" who may have responded, given enough time, by designing and manufacturing voting systems that could easily compete with, and wrest contracts from Diebold and Sequoia....

Instead....the following is typical, it will still be the same around the country in November, I fear....and when the polls close, the same thugs who control the federal government today, will control it....exit poll results....be damned!

Elphaba...how the *uck could the voting machines of both principle manufacturers be so *ucked up in mid-2006. This isn't rocket science. It almost has to be this way, by intent....

If I'm right, what's the back up plan? I've talked about it before.....do some of us pick straws daily....to see whose turn it is to throw themselves under the wheels of Dick Cheney's limo...everytime it leaves his residence or office, until the streets are so caked with blood and guts that he and Bush "get the message"....or select less obvious vehicles to transport themselves in ?

How did Ohio go red in '04 without the help of diebold?!?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio Democratic Website

No Ohio County used Diebold Electronic Voting Machines (See Press Release Below)

Ohio did not use modern electronic voting machines in this election. Six counties use an older form of electronic voting, which has a means of verifying the accuracy of the vote. In 69 Ohio Counties, punch card ballots were used.

http://ohiodems.org/index.php?displa...ails&id=191201

host · 09-30-2006, 11:43 PM

The question that comes to my mind, after reading this NPR piece, is, are we past the stage of "nipping" the assault on our constitution, "in the bud"?

If somewhere near 60 percent of our "elected representatives", and certainly, the executive branch, clearly choose to represent the "government"...our government.....instead of us, "the people", as the following piece describes, what else has to happen before there is a grassroots response to the suspension of any of our constitutional guarantees to a fair and speedy independent review by a court of competent jurisdiction, of any criminal charges brought against any individual by the government?

Doesn't this "legislation" make it more difficult for "the people" to intimidate the government into protecting our rights..... instead of taking them away, when it is indicated that actions by the government, make it neccessary to do so, as it seems, right now?

The irony seems to be that the alleged "protections" advertised as being neccessary to "fight terror", have the direct effect of making the government less accountable to "the people", and better able to indefinitely detain those designated as the "leaders" of any attempted organization of grassroots opposition to this new law, and to the trend toward loss of representation in the legislature and the former protections against unreasonable arrest, detention, and a guaranteed fair and speedy trial, in a civilian court, judged by a jury of our peers.

So.....since it is past the time "to nip it".....is it time now, to discuss when it is appropriate to intercede, via a grassroots opposition movement, and if not now.......when? Is it still "too early", is it "too late", is it simply to be dismissed as "out of the question", or is it past the time....but it isn't even fucking worth it, anymore, or anyway?

Was the plurality of the vote by our representatives, against our "rights", large enough to convince anyone that the situation described below, cannot be corrected via the ballot box?

Quote:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=6167856
<b>Bill Lets U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants</b>

Listen to this story... by Ari Shapiro
Inside the Detainee Bill

All Things Considered, September 29, 2006 · The new detainee legislation passed by Congress this week addresses who can be detained as an unlawful enemy combatant and what rights enemy combatants are entitled to. And it could have an impact on the president's ability to declare that an American citizen is an enemy combatant.

In this politically charged atmosphere, competing perspectives on the topic emerge. Bradford Berenson, a White House lawyer during President Bush's first term, says the legislation is consistent with what courts have said about the president's right to imprison U.S. citizens as enemy combatants.

"U.S. citizens can be detained as enemy combatants if they take up arms on the side of al-Qaida," Berenson says. "But they get some extra judicial protections in that case."

Interpretation at the Discretion of the White House

The legislation that Congress passed <b>does not say enemy combatants are people who "take up arms on the side of al-Qaida." The bill instead refers to people who provide "material support" to the enemy. The language of the bill says that is the standard for both citizens and non-citizens. But Berenson says that's not how the administration will apply it.</b>

"As a practical matter, it would turn out to be a much higher standard for an American citizen," Berenson says. He says a "very demanding review" would need to take place within the executive branch before the president would sign an order declaring a U.S. citizen to be an enemy combatant.

"There's really no risk that a U.S. citizen who merely gives a charitable contribution, in error, to an organization that supports terrorism is going to find him or herself declared an enemy combatant," he says.

<b>Yet this higher standard is not spelled out anywhere in the bill. Berenson acknowledges that what he describes is the White House's interpretation.

To Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, that sounds as if the administration is saying, "Trust us." And with a phrase as general as "material support," he's not comfortable doing that.</b>

Ratner says the Bush administration has a history of broadly interpreting what constitutes material support. 'It certainly includes a very broad level of behavior, " Ratner says. "The real problem is, it's really up to the administration to define it, and that's pretty sad to me."

<b>[host asks: Wasn't the US Constitution drafted, and then amended by the addition of the "Bill of Rights", specifically to guarantee to "the people", in exchange for relinquishing "some rights", in exchange for formation of a representative government, that afforded the additional protections of "the people", via a 3 branch structure that "checked and balanced" each other against abuse and the usurping of the ultimate authority....that of "the people".....SPECIFICALLY TO AVOID SCENARIOS OF POTENTIAL ABUSE OF POWER.....SUCH AS THE ONES DESCRIBED ABOVE?]</b>

Legal Protections for Citizens vs. Non-Citizens

So far the courts have been vague on the topic of defining Americans as enemy combatants. The only explicit ruling the Supreme Court offered was in the case of Yasser Hamdi. The justices said an American detained on the battlefield in Afghanistan could be declared an enemy combatant, as long as he had an opportunity to challenge his detention.

The high court hasn't ruled yet on whether Americans picked up in the United States can be enemy combatants, and if so, under what standard. The new legislation spells that out. Fordham University law professor Catherine Powell says the court is more likely to defer to Congress than to a rule that comes straight from the White House.

"Going back to the Civil War, the Supreme Court has often felt more comfortable with actions that have the support of both the executive and legislative branch than those that just have the support of the executive branch," Powell says.

Americans held as enemy combatants have certain legal rights. They can challenge their detention, and if they're charged with war crimes, they get more rights at their trials than non-citizens.

By contrast, the legislation puts non-citizen enemy combatants in a very different situation. If they aren't charged with a war crime, they may never be brought to court at all.

<h3>By passing this "Detainee Bill", into law, hasn't the POTUS and 60+ percent of our representatives, staged their boldest coup yet, against "the people"? Aren't they....with each incremental weakening of our individual rights and thus, the strengthening of the government's, testing our response....and....it follows....emboldening them to take the next "nip", and the "next".....until.....what ????</h3>

dksuddeth · 10-01-2006, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

<h3>By passing this "Detainee Bill", into law, hasn't the POTUS and 60+ percent of our representatives, staged their boldest coup yet, against "the people"? Aren't they....with each incremental weakening of our individual rights and thus, the strengthening of the government's, testing our response....and....it follows....emboldening them to take the next "nip", and the "next".....until.....what ????</h3>

you are currently looking at the result of 75 years of zealously pursued statism. The boundaries of freedom and liberty have been blurred by various groups who don't trust the people with their own freedom, who don't trust the people with having the power of the nation, groups who firmly believe that the central government IS, SHOULD BE, AND ALWAYS WILL BE the only ones capable of providing the security and safety that they so desire. Any 'grassroots' group that stands up for freedom and liberty is going to be shouted down as a terrorist support because they won't allow the central government to protect them. God forbid that someone should even intimate that violent resistance against their statist agenda is not only possible, but certain, for then they will be depicted as completely unstable and therefore should be locked away for the good of society as well as their own good.

The ONLY way to get back control of the governments is probably going to be another civil war.

Ch'i · 10-01-2006, 08:43 PM

I'm starting to wonder how far an administration can go before the people will be driven to act. Its a case of the frog in a gradual boil. Civil war is a possibility. Hopefully your wrong.

This society has been turned into one in which the people no longer have power. And those who occupy this society are not free of this guilt. We have the ability to chose our leaders, a priviledge which many chose to ignor. And even if they chose not to vote, they must be willing to help preserve their government. When our president says things like this...

Quote:

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

...and this...

Quote:

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

...and hardly anyone cares, you're left with a fairly good understanding of how sick this country has become. Vigilence has lost all meaning.

But something needs to happen. If the government is able to seize control of our lives, it is only because we let them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by V for Vendetta (the graphic novel)

I shall die here. Every last inch of me shall perish. Except one.

An inch. It's small and it's fragile and it's the only thing in the world worth having. We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.

Ustwo · 10-02-2006, 07:18 AM

I'd guess that more people will watch tonights football game then watched the last presidential election debates.

There will be a small revolution in November, and a big one 2 years in November, nothing in that has changed. Anyone arguing we need an armed overthrow of the government at this point is a nutjob, besides, which side has the guns?

Ch'i · 10-02-2006, 04:41 PM

He's got a point there.

ASU2003 · 10-02-2006, 06:19 PM

They just had a government get overthrown in Thailand. It is the only way it could happen here as well. The military has more power than the politicians. The military could 'kick out' the current government and hold emergency elections in a few months. I guess that is why they ask everyone working for the government if they have ever tried to overthrow or plan to overthrow the government.

Massive amounts of people could be a problem for the military to keep in line (we are talking 100+ million here). But, as our country get divided more and more, and liberals move to the same cities and states, conservatives to their states, conflict between states doesn't seem quite so far-fetched.

dc_dux · 10-02-2006, 06:28 PM

I agree with Ustwo on this one....."Anyone arguing we need an armed overthrow of the government at this point is a nutjob"

There is a reason why we have the longest operating democracy in the world.

While its far from perfect and (here is where UStwo and I probably disagree), particularly so under the current administration which operates by secrecy and the unilateral determination of the lines of Constitutional authority and responsiblity and other means of manipulating the law to serve a political ideology....citizens still have the means to redress their grievances through the ballot and beyond, albeit not always successfully.

Talk of armed insurrection is a folly.

Willravel · 10-02-2006, 06:33 PM

Technological superiority doesn't amount to jack squat. Also, what soldier in their right mind would go into an American city or town to kill American citizens? I think a lot of people are underestimating the hypothetical insurgent fighting force of Americans.

dc_dux · 10-02-2006, 06:37 PM

Kent State?

filtherton · 10-02-2006, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Technological superiority doesn't amount to jack squat. Also, what soldier in their right mind would go into an American city or town to kill American citizens? I think a lot of people are underestimating the hypothetical insurgent fighting force of Americans.

Well, it all depends on how you frame the conflict. History is littered with instances of armies attacking the people they're supposed to protect. Anyone inciting armed overthrow of the government could easily be shellacked into terrorist status. The government would just have to come up with a sufficient pr campaign to dehumanize the insurgents.

ASU2003 · 10-02-2006, 08:12 PM

It would be interesting to look up the newspapers in both the North and the South right before the Civil War broke out and see if there was any propaganda. Was it the politicians that led the people in the south to be against the north, or did all of the northerners already think of southerners as slave-owning lower class people, and southerners think of the north as controlling dictators?

It would get really ugly if the US military broke in two and fought itself now.

Willravel · 10-02-2006, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Well, it all depends on how you frame the conflict. History is littered with instances of armies attacking the people they're supposed to protect. Anyone inciting armed overthrow of the government could easily be shellacked into terrorist status. The government would just have to come up with a sufficient pr campaign to dehumanize the insurgents.

A very legitimate point, but it's one thing to claim that a man born in Saudi Arabia, raised in a society that unfortunatally promotes hatred of all things western, who lost his aunt to an attack by US forces, who has links to the al Qaeda is a terrorist. It's another thing to claim a man born in Austin Texas, father of two, who is a manager at Orchard Supply and coaches a t-ball team is a terrorist.

Consider if someone suggested I was a terrorist. I was born in San Jose, son of a Lutheran pastor, married and one daughter, good job, lots of friends, donates to charity, feeds the homeless, TONS of friends in the military, belongs to a military family, a history of seeking peaceful solutions, a member of the peace movement, posts waaay to much on TFP: is this the profile of the standard terrorist? Doubtful. Even with my unorthodox beliefs about 9/11 and my strong liberal leanings, I'm still not going to be on a terrorist watch list. Despite all this, I could be a terrorist. Who knows? The thing is, the hypothetical American terrorist who would wish to overthrow the government would need the military. They would need the support of the people and the military in order to bring about a change with the least bloodshed possible. What does this mean? Bombing empty government buildings. Public defacing of prominant party figures (telling the truth about the bad leaders). Blowing up banks afterhours. Blowing up symbols of tyranny. Destroying the tools of those who would destroy peace.

filtherton · 10-02-2006, 09:00 PM

I know what you're saying will, but when it comes to the characterization of the enemy in war, reality has little relevence. The definition of terrorist is a pliable one. All it really means is that the powers that be find you to be very threatening, either that or they want an excuse to lock you up.

roachboy · 10-03-2006, 06:59 AM

there are all kinds of scenarios that would render the firepower of a vertically organized military more or less useless.
faced with the outcomes of a legitimation crisis of any real proportions, statements like "we have guns" would be about as functional as the wolfowitz "plan" was for iraq.
such statements reflect little beyond simple-minded arrogance.

the question is not whether and insurrection could happen, but rather which one--which ideology would be used, what the goals would be, how these goals would be reflected in organizational structure, etc.

mass actions do not just happen.
they are not purely spontaneous.
historically, mass actions have articulated themselves around available discourses, have taken them over and reworked them practically as they fashion themselves as movements.

it is not obvious that the logic of civil war leading to revolution is rational.
the history of the revolutionary tradition has shown this pretty clearly: if you think about revolution as a military operation, you tend to get military organizations runing the show. when they get power, they impose their internal logic on the situation they come to control. so the notion of a revolution organized around small armed groups is problematic in itself--but the trick is the politics of that organization...
a far more effective strategy would involve a variant of the general strike.
a very large, entirely peaceful withdrawl of consent could bring any government to its knees.
no amount of weaponry would make any difference: who would you shoot at? everyone? and what makes anyone think that the military would be outside of such an action?
any action on the part of the state is such a context would simply speed its implosion.

the only real problem from my viewpoint is that there is no revolutionary politics that offers anything like a coherent countermodel to the existing order. i would entirely oppose any rightwing nationalist action. further, i do not think such an action would be able to gather any meaningful support--the bush squad has already stolen the thunder of such politics, and a rightwing movement would offer nothing but more of the same.

in the end, the right faces the problems that the left has been dealing with for quite a long time--the hollowing out of its rhetoric, the collapse of any meaningful purchase of the terminology it relies upon.

Ch'i · 10-03-2006, 12:32 PM

Unless this entire problem is a ruse by Bush to elaborate on how weak our constitution is.

dksuddeth · 10-03-2006, 01:28 PM

our constitution started weakening after the civil war, it increased exponentially with FDR and the new deal dems.

Willravel · 10-03-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

The ONLY way to get back control of the governments is probably going to be another civil war.

Be careful drawing lines in the sand in public. I'd hate to lose someone vital to the survival of this country to imprisonment before everything starts.

Ustwo · 10-04-2006, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Destroying the tools of those who would destroy peace.

Ironic.

host · 10-05-2006, 11:32 PM

I am on the verge of starting a thread tilted, "Is this enough"? We all have our own individual tolerance, a line that cannot be crossed before we'll do.....what?

How many have decided that they will simply look "the other way", no matter what former protections and rights, "under the law", are simply appropriated by the "unitary exectuive"?

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...218044,00.html
Bush Asserts Right to Edit Homeland Security Dept. Privacy Reports

Thursday , October 05, 2006

WASHINGTON — President Bush, again defying Congress, says he has the power to edit the Homeland Security Department's reports about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watchlists.

In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.

But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency's 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it's appropriate for the administration to know what reports go to Congress and to review them beforehand.

"There can be a discussion on whether to accept a change or a nuance," she said. "It could be any number of things."

The American Bar Association and members of Congress have said Bush uses signing statements excessively as a way to expand his power.

The Senate held hearings on the issue in June. At the time, 110 statements challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers combined from the White House and the Senate committee. They include documents revising or disregarding parts of legislation to ban torture of detainees and to renew the Patriot Act.

Privacy advocate Marc Rotenberg said Bush is trying to subvert lawmakers' ability to accurately monitor activities of the executive branch of government.

"The Homeland Security Department has been setting up watch lists to determine who gets on planes, who gets government jobs, who gets employed," said Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

He said the Homeland Security Department has the most significant impact on citizens' privacy of any agency in the federal government.

Homeland Security agencies check airline passengers' names against terrorist watch lists and detain them if there's a match. They make sure transportation workers' backgrounds are investigated. They are working on several kinds of biometric ID cards that millions of people would have to carry.

The department's privacy office has put the brakes on some initiatives, such as using insecure radio-frequency identification technology, or RFID, in travel documents. It also developed privacy policies after an uproar over the disclosure that airlines turned over their passengers' personal information to the government.

The last privacy report was submitted in February 2005.

Bush's signing statement Wednesday challenges several other provisions in the Homeland Security spending bill.

Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."

What if there was a knock on your door, and some authority announced that they were authorized to seize your remote channel changer?

dksuddeth · 10-06-2006, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I am on the verge of starting a thread tilted, "Is this enough"? We all have our own individual tolerance, a line that cannot be crossed before we'll do.....what?

How many have decided that they will simply look "the other way", no matter what former protections and rights, "under the law", are simply appropriated by the "unitary exectuive"?

What if there was a knock on your door, and some authority announced that they were authorized to seize your remote channel changer?

There are so many different lines for people of when they will say 'enough'. It usually has to do with the inability to understand what freedom and liberty was supposed to be and replace that with the comfort of feeling safe with protection provided by the government. I suspect some people would be perfectly happy with martial law, troops in the street, and having to stay in your home except for work as long as they could feel 'safe'. On the other end, I know people that think we're no longer 'free' since a farmer can't grow wheat for his own consumption if congress thinks he shouldn't. Then there are the millions of different lines in between.

dc_dux · 10-06-2006, 04:31 AM

The ABA recently released a report on Bush's "signing statements":

Quote:

Presidential signing statements that assert President Bush’s authority to disregard or decline to enforce laws adopted by Congress undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, according to a report released today by a blue-ribbon American Bar Association task force.
...
The task force determined that signing statements that signal the president’s intent to disregard laws adopted by Congress undermine the separation of powers by depriving Congress of the opportunity to override a veto, and by shutting off policy debate between the two branches of government. According to the task force, they operate as a “line item veto,” which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional.

Noting that the Constitution is silent about presidential signing statements, the task force found that, while several recent presidents have used them, the frequency of signing statements that challenge laws has escalated substantially, and their purpose has changed dramatically, during the Bush Administration.

The task force report states, “From the inception of the Republic until 2000, Presidents produced fewer than 600 signing statements taking issue with the bills they signed. According to the most recent update, in his one-and-a-half terms so far, President George Walker Bush ... has produced more than 800.”
...
If the president believes a bill pending before Congress would be unconstitutional if enacted, he should communicate his concerns to Congress before the bill is passed, according to the task force.

Additionally, the task force urges Congress to enact legislation requiring the president promptly to submit to Congress an official copy of every signing statement he issues. Any time the president claims authority or states his intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law he has signed, the legislation should require him to submit a report to Congress, available in a public database, setting forth in full the reasons and legal basis for his position, said the task force.

"I find these signing statements are to Bush and Cheney's presidency what steroids were to Arnold Schwarzenegger's body building." (link)

A few examples from among the more than 800 signing statements:

March 9, 2006:
Law: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain daes on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.
Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005:
Law: When requested, scientific information "prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8, 2005:
Law: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.
Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Oct. 29, 200r:
Law: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.
Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.

What will it take for the American people to see how this president treats the Constitution in all manners that affect our lives?

dksuddeth · 10-06-2006, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

What will it take for the American people to see how this president treats the Constitution in all manners that affect our lives?

The $64,000 question. I would add that it's not just the president. It's congress and the judiciary as well.

dc_dux · 10-06-2006, 05:12 AM

I agree that the Congress and judiciary have abrogated their responsibilities to protect the Constitutionally-defined separation of powers among the three branches of government.

That is one reason I have always believed that the most safeguards and best oversight of the checks and balances are provided when we have a majority Congress of the opposing party to the president.

So vote Dem next month. Its less painful and dangerous than armed insurrection

dksuddeth · 10-06-2006, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I agree that the Congress and judiciary have abrogated their responsibilities to protect the Constitutionally-defined separation of powers among the three branches of government.

That is one reason I have always believed that the most safeguards and best oversight of the checks and balances are provided when we have a majority Congress of the opposing party to the president.

So vote Dem next month. Its less painful and dangerous than armed insurrection

This would make sense, if one were to believe that democrats protected the constitution and bill of rights. This is far from true though.

The ONLY thing that gets accomplished by having opposing parties in the white house and congress is that they generally can do no more damage than is already done.

Ustwo · 10-06-2006, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

This would make sense, if one were to believe that democrats protected the constitution and bill of rights. This is far from true though.

The ONLY thing that gets accomplished by having opposing parties in the white house and congress is that they generally can do no more damage than is already done.

Saved Clintons presidency and made him somewhat popular being able to do nothing for 6 years. It was his first 2 that got him in trouble.

host · 10-06-2006, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

.....So vote Dem next month. Its less painful and dangerous than armed insurrection

...and if that doesn't work? What if polling....either just before the election, or exit polling results....in multiple districts, especially in places like Ohio, Florida, and in Washington, clearly do not match the reported vote results?

Ironically, dc_dux, how does either branch of congress, do anything to check what amounts to a slow rolling coup.....a death to the constitution by a thousand cuts. The most we can hope for, even if political control of the house were to change, is that an impeachment resolution is drafted, and the executive branch ignores it, or defies it, citing national security issues to justify it's resistance.

This would "speed up" greater recognition of where I, and the ABA think that we already are.....we have arrived, a while ago, at a situation where the POTUS has declared himself to be the law.....to supercede the law, because we are at his phony, perpetual "state of war".

The vote, two weeks ago, on the "detainee" bill, indicates that, even if one or both branches of congress changed hands, there is no political will to check the takeover of the government....the subversion of the constitution, by the executive branch.

There are always early players. In a situation like the one we are in, if they emerge to openly resist at all, even if their protests seem aggressive, but non-violent to most of us, they will be made harsh examples of, to discourage their inspiring any momentum towards insurrection.

My point is, I see no potential for intimidation, "by the people", to discourage the "taking" of their power and rights, by the executive. I certainly don't see any coming from congress. Cindy Sheehan has been the closest we've witnessed to anything like that, even having the potential of happening.

A rational response would be the organizing of general strikes..... or even declaration of a non-participation day, as Mexican immigrants impressively organized, last spring. They staged a protest that was not even rooted in the legitimacy of affronts by our government, to the law, and they did it with more indignation, than the ways we have reacted to deliberate affronts to the law.

I am increasingly pessimistic that anything can stop the completion of this coup. We read about it's progression, make a li'l noise, and stay on our couches......some of us who even make any noise at all, or briiefly stare away from the "game" on the TV.

No one wants to be first, but if the founding fathers, left it to the "other guy", to stick his neck out, we would have no constitution to lose, or <b>to risk losing everything, to preserve.</b>

10-02-2006, 07:18 AM	#131 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I'd guess that more people will watch tonights football game then watched the last presidential election debates. There will be a small revolution in November, and a big one 2 years in November, nothing in that has changed. Anyone arguing we need an armed overthrow of the government at this point is a nutjob, besides, which side has the guns? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-02-2006, 06:28 PM	#134 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I agree with Ustwo on this one....."Anyone arguing we need an armed overthrow of the government at this point is a nutjob" There is a reason why we have the longest operating democracy in the world. While its far from perfect and (here is where UStwo and I probably disagree), particularly so under the current administration which operates by secrecy and the unilateral determination of the lines of Constitutional authority and responsiblity and other means of manipulating the law to serve a political ideology....citizens still have the means to redress their grievances through the ballot and beyond, albeit not always successfully. Talk of armed insurrection is a folly. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-02-2006, 06:37 PM	#136 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Kent State? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-03-2006, 06:59 AM	#141 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there are all kinds of scenarios that would render the firepower of a vertically organized military more or less useless. faced with the outcomes of a legitimation crisis of any real proportions, statements like "we have guns" would be about as functional as the wolfowitz "plan" was for iraq. such statements reflect little beyond simple-minded arrogance. the question is not whether and insurrection could happen, but rather which one--which ideology would be used, what the goals would be, how these goals would be reflected in organizational structure, etc. mass actions do not just happen. they are not purely spontaneous. historically, mass actions have articulated themselves around available discourses, have taken them over and reworked them practically as they fashion themselves as movements. it is not obvious that the logic of civil war leading to revolution is rational. the history of the revolutionary tradition has shown this pretty clearly: if you think about revolution as a military operation, you tend to get military organizations runing the show. when they get power, they impose their internal logic on the situation they come to control. so the notion of a revolution organized around small armed groups is problematic in itself--but the trick is the politics of that organization... a far more effective strategy would involve a variant of the general strike. a very large, entirely peaceful withdrawl of consent could bring any government to its knees. no amount of weaponry would make any difference: who would you shoot at? everyone? and what makes anyone think that the military would be outside of such an action? any action on the part of the state is such a context would simply speed its implosion. the only real problem from my viewpoint is that there is no revolutionary politics that offers anything like a coherent countermodel to the existing order. i would entirely oppose any rightwing nationalist action. further, i do not think such an action would be able to gather any meaningful support--the bush squad has already stolen the thunder of such politics, and a rightwing movement would offer nothing but more of the same. in the end, the right faces the problems that the left has been dealing with for quite a long time--the hollowing out of its rhetoric, the collapse of any meaningful purchase of the terminology it relies upon. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-03-2006, 01:28 PM	#143 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	our constitution started weakening after the civil war, it increased exponentially with FDR and the new deal dems. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

10-02-2006, 04:41 PM	#132 (permalink)
Ch'i Artist of Life	He's got a point there.

10-02-2006, 06:19 PM	#133 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	They just had a government get overthrown in Thailand. It is the only way it could happen here as well. The military has more power than the politicians. The military could 'kick out' the current government and hold emergency elections in a few months. I guess that is why they ask everyone working for the government if they have ever tried to overthrow or plan to overthrow the government. Massive amounts of people could be a problem for the military to keep in line (we are talking 100+ million here). But, as our country get divided more and more, and liberals move to the same cities and states, conservatives to their states, conflict between states doesn't seem quite so far-fetched.

10-02-2006, 06:33 PM	#135 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Technological superiority doesn't amount to jack squat. Also, what soldier in their right mind would go into an American city or town to kill American citizens? I think a lot of people are underestimating the hypothetical insurgent fighting force of Americans.

10-02-2006, 08:12 PM	#138 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	It would be interesting to look up the newspapers in both the North and the South right before the Civil War broke out and see if there was any propaganda. Was it the politicians that led the people in the south to be against the north, or did all of the northerners already think of southerners as slave-owning lower class people, and southerners think of the north as controlling dictators? It would get really ugly if the US military broke in two and fought itself now.

10-02-2006, 09:00 PM	#140 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I know what you're saying will, but when it comes to the characterization of the enemy in war, reality has little relevence. The definition of terrorist is a pliable one. All it really means is that the powers that be find you to be very threatening, either that or they want an excuse to lock you up.

10-03-2006, 12:32 PM	#142 (permalink)
Ch'i Artist of Life	Unless this entire problem is a ruse by Bush to elaborate on how weak our constitution is.

10-06-2006, 05:12 AM	#150 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I agree that the Congress and judiciary have abrogated their responsibilities to protect the Constitutionally-defined separation of powers among the three branches of government. That is one reason I have always believed that the most safeguards and best oversight of the checks and balances are provided when we have a majority Congress of the opposing party to the president. So vote Dem next month. Its less painful and dangerous than armed insurrection __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire