|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
06-27-2008, 03:27 PM | #121 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
And I agree that for the first six years of those AUMFs, the Republican Congress completely abrogated its oversight responsibilities to ensure that Bush did not exceed the authority granted. And I even agree that in the last 18 months, the Democrats have not acted as aggessively and thoroughly as they could have ..given that their hands were tied by the lack of cooperation by their Republican colleagues (blocking legislation) and the Bush administration (ignoring subpoenas)...and yet still exposed, and with the concurrence of the federal judiciary, prevented many of those abuses from continuing.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-27-2008 at 03:30 PM.. |
|
06-27-2008, 06:22 PM | #122 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
We're not at war (we've not technically been at war since WWII), therefore stop-loss is illegal, no? |
|
06-29-2008, 01:10 PM | #123 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Congress gave the President authority to use the military against the "Iraq threat". Republicans and Democrats supported the authorization. Congress had a major responsibility to understand all the issues prior to giving the President the authority to wage war. Saying the President lied or that he exaggerated is not justification for them not fulfilling their responsibility. The authority given to the President was not a formal declaration of war but was the equivalent to a declaration of war in my view. The President was given open ended authority to use the military as he saw fit, his judgment. This in my view gave him the same power a President would have when war is formally declared. Congress with power of the purse, further validated the actions and judgments made by the President. Minority party or not, each vote on the Iraq invasion, occupation, and democratization mattered. Under no circumstances can I accept member of Congress being unclear on the issue of waging an offensive war. Congress created a constitutionally vague situation by not formally declaring war, and giving Bush "war" authority in a manner that was not specific. Bush used his judgment and in some cases tested the limits of his authority as laid out by Congress. As is appropriate when there is a dispute between branches of government or when laws are unclear, the judicial branch was called in to clarify issues in question. I see this as a normal part of our government working. There have always been power struggles between governmental branches and there will be in the future. I don't think this means Bush acts unilaterally or makes him the most corrupt/worst President in our history. If there are issues not being resolved, it is a failing on the part of Congress. Congress has a responsibility to check the President. We can agree or disagree on the decisions and judgments made by the President, but I do not fault the President for making decisions and exercising his judgment in accordance with the power given to him by Congress. Talking about how he is abusing power while not doing anything about it is inexcusable. I think there are lessons Congress can learn from what has happened over the past 7 years, other than simply saying the minority party had no choice, they had to compromise, they were forced, or that they simply were not as aggressive as I would have been. In my view these are very real issues and very real lessons are to be learned. However, that assumes I give Democrats the benefit of believing that they are interested in understanding how they failed. I actually doubt Democrats in Congress believe Bush's judgments and actions were that far off of the mark.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 06-29-2008 at 01:13 PM.. |
|
06-29-2008, 02:34 PM | #124 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
ace....an AUMF is vague only if you want it to be vague. The language is clear...refering ONLY to the use of military force not broad "war" authority....not NSA illegal syping and not CIA illegal torture....but I dont expect you to accept that.
And to characterize the Democrats actions in the last 1-1/2 years as doing nothing and inexcusable is simply ignorant of the facts. The most egregious of Bush's abuse of power were stopped. Within the first two months after assuming the majority, Bush's illegal "terrorist surveillance program" was dead in its tracks as a result of Congressional oversight. Within the year, Bush's illegal treatment of prisoners was significantly curtailed as a result of Congressional oversight and judicial decisions. But I dont expect you to accept those as reasonable and responsible actions by the Democrats either...you can continue to call those actions inexcusable. The only inexcusable action was the failure of Congress between 2001 and 2007 to exercise any oversight responsibility of the Executive branch and to give Bush a blank check to do whatever he wanted, despite the explicit limitations of the AUMFs. And I still believe there is a possibility that Obama will ask his AG to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate further potentially criminal acts by the highest officials in the Bush administration over the last seven years that the current AG refuses to pursue or blocked.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-29-2008 at 04:32 PM.. |
06-29-2008, 04:32 PM | #125 (permalink) | |
Darth Papa
Location: Yonder
|
Quote:
|
|
06-29-2008, 04:54 PM | #126 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
__________________
"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." |
|
06-30-2008, 07:43 AM | #127 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
I quoted the law. It says what it says. Congress cited its Constitutional power to declare war to authorize Bush to use military force against the Iraqi threat as Bush saw fit. I agree that is pretty clear, and perhaps vague is not the right word. If I think of a better word I will let you know.
Regardless of the "word", what we ended up with, was pretty much equal to a herd of sheep giving open end authority to a wolf. I am a wolf and I understand what the wolf does with the authority a herd of sheep will give a wolf. After being abused by the wolf, the herd of sheep occasionally employed a guard dog, but more too often, given their baaaaa'ing, they gave the wolf more of what the wolf wanted. I find it amusing to point out how the herd of sheep put themselves in a untenable position and then blame the wolf for being a wolf. The rationalizing is off the charts. Why can't you folks simply admit that your Democratic party leaders either screwed up monumentally or they are simply full of B.S. in their empty rhetoric.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
06-30-2008, 08:07 AM | #128 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
this is really a funny line of argument that you're pursuing, ace.
say one were to concede it, in all it's self-evidence---because the "shocking" center of your position is self-evident, at least in its surface features: yes congress capitulated. yes, congress acted in an appalling fashion by giving bush such authorities as it gave, and in language that arguably opened onto even more authorities, which the administration simply took. and yes, there is an element of backtracking in the responses of congress since the last elections. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS ACE DARLING---but *you* seem to be under the impression that this self-evident fact of the matter is a great revelation. where the hell have you been? the bush administration has generated what ought to be by any rational standard a series of problems for the entire american political order. this is crisis management. duh. but that's not what is interesting in your last post. here's another version: you are now have decided to glamorize bush administration impunity with your "sheep/wolf" opposition. so presumably you, like any number of other fascist opponents of democracy in whatever its form, do not find debate or multiplicity to be sufficiently "manly" and prefer the erect Will of an Individual Leader to it. i doubt seriously that you have the faintest idea of the extent to which your argument harkens back to the extreme right of the 1920s...but no matter: it seems that many who fall for the neocon line operate in a historical vacuum such that wholesale recapitulation of extreme rightwing critiques of democracy as a whole from the 1920s shangri-la of germany (you know, the "good period" of fascism before things got too ugly) is not a problem. rightwing extremists have always opposed their theories of manly dictatorship to the weak-kneed vacillation of the legislative. turning back to the bush people, it seems that your position is now reduced to approval on sexual-aesthetic grounds, as one who cheerleads for the Dominant, but who thinks there's no fun to be had as cheerleader of the Dominant unless the Submissive says "I am Submissive." so this isn't about law, it isn't about an interpretation of law--it isn't about much of anything except the above. but the funniest thing of all is that you don't seem to be aware yourself of the nature and lineage of your own argument. we can play this little game for a while, ace.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
06-30-2008, 08:23 AM | #130 (permalink) | |
let me be clear
Location: Waddy Peytona
|
Quote:
__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo |
|
06-30-2008, 08:26 AM | #131 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
you could start with my favorite, carl schmitt.
there are a number of books that you could read of his---i think political theology is a good place to start. i was also thinking about ernst junger's novels of the same period. storm of steel--but that's a bit more futurist. you could also try any number of a host of books written by historians concerning early german fascism and the ideology of masculinity--start with george mosse's work and move sideways. have a look and get back to me: i'd be happy to provide more titles, otto. this is not a hostile post, btw--i really find it odd to see this stuff circulating from time to time amongst neocon folk-not so much at the center of the ideology, but as a way of talking about power, the aesthetics of it.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
06-30-2008, 09:58 AM | #133 (permalink) | ||||||||||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Rule #1 on managing wolves, never give a wolf an opportunity for unchecked power. Isn't that a lesson to be learned? Quote:
Rule #2 regarding managing wolves - never show weakness. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Rule #3 regarding managing wolves - never give power that you will want back, there will be a fight. You can razzle, dazzle with lengthy explanations of my issues, my flaws, etc., but at least I knew what we had and what to expect. Are you suggesting there was anyone paying attention that did not know? And if they knew, how do you explain them letting him go unchecked? I stated that I had some respect for Democrats like Kucinich - he has been consistent, it seems like he understood his responsibility, and it seems he acted in ways consistent with his stated principles. Rule #4 regarding managing wolves - be consistent, stand firm, deliver consequences quickly, decisively. Quote:
Rule #5 regarding managing wolves - know the language. I wonder if this means I should know your language or if you should know mine? I guess it depends on the circumstance. But, are you saying that everyone knew what Bush was saying and what the implications of his words would be? Quote:
By the way, I once tried a demo of that game in your video on XBOX, the controls lacked precision and the game seemed to lack a point. Reminds me of...never mind.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 06-30-2008 at 10:02 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||||||||||
06-30-2008, 11:32 AM | #134 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
–nounThats one hell of an objective set of standards and analyses!
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-30-2008 at 11:48 AM.. |
|
06-30-2008, 11:54 AM | #135 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Your posts on all threads on this forum maintain that "Bush doesn't lie", but democrats "are dishonest". You post here that you voted for Bush, but he doesn't lie.... why, he even fooled his own wife: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ay#post2144242 The point is that Bush has become very similar to the enemies he "protects us from". He advocates a reduction of rights and concentration of his own power that looks more like the Kremlin than the Capitol. Just as I accuse Obama of doing, (vs. the Bush admin...) )I accuse Bush of becoming "just like them"....what is he fighting to "uphold", when he's taken it all....destroyed what our constitution once stood for? I am challenging signs of Obama doing the same thing....you won't even admit that Bush is a liar! |
|
06-30-2008, 12:19 PM | #136 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Don't think anyone has ever asked what I thought was and was not excusable regarding what Bush has done, I simply explain what he did and tried to give an explanation of why he did it. I gave insight to those interested in knowing how to deal with people like Bush. The nature of a wolf makes it behavior predictable, Bush's behavior was predictable. I even tell you what my behavior would have been or would be. I never said if these behaviors/actions/decisions were right or wrong, it simply is what it is. I am the first to know when I cross a line, and I know why I cross it. I am also a person who would admit crossing the line and will tell you why. There is no wolf defense. I made the analogy to further illustrate how either Democrats had no clue or that they actually endorse many of the actions taken by Bush. Sorry, if I can not explain the point in a manner that you can understand.
The Republicans supported the actions take by Bush regarding Iraq, as did I. I have stated several times that Bush has made some mistakes, so have Republicans. However, I don't think he lied, I don't think Bush has done anything rising to the level of an impeachable offense. I do think he used hyperbole in his case for war, but I have stated all of those things. The actions taken by Democrats don't match the level of their complaints. I asked for help reconciling that in my earliest posts on this issue, never to get any kind of response other than the common themes of Bush lied, they had no choice, or they accomplished some items on the fringes of what is important relative to their rhetoric. For example I don't understand your behavior. If I thought I was reading a "sham", I might enjoy reading it but I certainly would not put time and energy responding to it, after all a "sham" is a "sham". Quote:
You never really address the question - was Bush's behavior a surprise to you? When Bush made his case for war - did you not consider the fact that he was over-selling his case? Did you not know that his intent was to allow no tolerance for Saddam's defiance prior to him becoming President? Did you not know that Chaney had a crusade going on in his mind regarding executive power? Did you not know that the administration would use it power against those disloyal (i.e. - Plame)? Did you not know the CIA was going to be authorized to do "more" to fight terrorism than they did under the Clinton administration? Now are you saying that Obama's inconsistencies are a surprise to you? If someone would answer these questions honestly, I would gladly move on and perhaps you folks might understand what my views are based on. Hell, Kerry was for the war and against it, Obama is for the second amendment meaning individuals have a right to own firearms and against it. Gee, Obama is nothing like most Republicans.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 06-30-2008 at 12:30 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|
06-30-2008, 02:43 PM | #137 (permalink) | |||||||||||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When I can't support something I've said, ace, I stop saying it ! ace...roachboy touched on it, but I don't think he quite captured the irony of a conservative mindset that "worships" a perceived masculinity that looks upon chickenhawks as virile and assertive, and decorated combat veterans like....John Kerry...as "wimps". This is what your repeated assertion that "Bush is a wolf", reminds me, of...and you posted that you are a "wolf", too? What is up with that? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 06-30-2008 at 03:56 PM.. |
|||||||||||||||||
07-01-2008, 07:02 AM | #138 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
I am confused by what you want. Can you simplify it.
For the record: I have not seen any evidence of an operational relationship between 9/11, Iraq and Saddam. I have not seen any quotes stating there was an operational relationship between 9/11, Iraq and Saddam. I have seen quotes, linking Iraq and al qaeda, Saddam and al qaeda, Iraq and terrorists, Saddam and terrorists. As far as I know Iraq and Saddam have always operationally acted independently of al qaeda and visa versa. However, I act independently of you and through TFP we have been interacting with each other, there is no evidence that I have provided you with aid and support - but if there was evidence that you were in my house, people could easily make a circumstantial case that we have a relationship and that I may have provided you with aid and support. I did provide information where Zarqwai was reportedly in Iraq. I have not seen any information showing that Zarqwai had direct communication with Saddam. Any case made, given the available data made public, regarding a relationship between al queda, Zarqwai, and Saddam, Iraq is circumstantial. I am not sure a person needs to say that every time or any time they make an argument based on circumstantial evidence. To me it becomes self evident when I evaluate the argument. To try to address you question I did a google search typing in the following: "Bush statements regarding relationship between iraq and al qaeda" The first item listed was the following, from CNN: Quote:
How much clearer can Bush be in addressing this question?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|
07-02-2008, 06:17 AM | #139 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/
this link take you to a frontline program on cheney/addington and their legal theory of de facto dictatorship, which they reference as the "theory of the unitary executive."---again, this is straight carl schmitt, but with the rhetorical references stripped away. that it is permissable within the existing system is a problem within the existing system. one thing i think the bush people have taught us is that the power of the executive can be a Problem if the right right group of neo-fascists get access to it. another thing they *may* have taught is that this possibility--the "unitary executive" tipping toward a theory of dictatorship--is enough a problem that a basic rewrite of the rules might be in order. in a more rigid type of constitutional system, like you see in continental europe, the bush administration would have already triggered a constitutional crisis. i am not at all sure that the inability of the american system to register crisis is a good thing. i am not at all sure of that.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
07-02-2008, 06:36 AM | #140 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Oh, and I know it was the Republicans in Congress who are to blame at first and now that Democrats are in control they have accomplished a lot, and more is to come.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|
07-02-2008, 06:42 AM | #141 (permalink) | |
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
Again, the only thing that I see that this is covered by the original framers is that in 4 years you can vote the guy out of office and the new guy can overturn the previous 4 years...
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. |
|
07-02-2008, 06:59 AM | #142 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
The system works when it is allowed to play out and when each of the branches act as the framers envisioned to "check" the others....better than any parliamentary system, IMO.
In this case, Congress failed to perform its function for six years (and were voted out) and the Courts were not asked to become involved (they cant' do so voluntarily) or cases`had to work their way through the levels of the federal judiciary to be finally resolved. What I think is unrealistic, once Congress and the Courts starting doing their job, is to expect immediate results or to have an immediate impact. The process of checks and balances takes time...the goal is to do it right, not do it fast. Look back at the last example of gross abuse of power by a president. It took two years, from when the first abuses were exposed, to get red of Nixon. add: Congrats to rb and cynth (and the others)....well deserved!
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-02-2008 at 07:20 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
07-02-2008, 07:34 AM | #143 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
I certainly see merit in investigating CIA leaks, justice department firings, more clearly defining torture, etc.,( I have never stated being against investigations and holding people accountable for their actions) however, the primary issue of the day is the war. Congress, in particular Democrats, have not sent a clear and consistent message on the war issue. Are we at war, is the war failed, should we bring our troops home, should we support the surge, should we give Iraq time tables, these and other questions are not being answered, and can be.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|
07-02-2008, 07:41 AM | #144 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
cyn--that's in a sense the problem---the administration *can* get away with this because the possibility is itself allowed for in the context of the "checks and balances" of the system.
and like dc says, the advantage necessarily accrues to the "unitary" executive in this context because the executive can "act" where congress has to deliberate--and the judicary is only really involved at a further remove when cases work their way through the system. so the problem seems to me to be this structural feature of the american constitutional system as enframed by a particular (neocon) ideology and acted upon by cheney/addington and the neocon cabal within the bush administration. at one level, this seems to me to be the logical extension of the doctrine of the national security state itself---which was built around these same types of assumptions concerning the need for manly unified swift action --as over against time-consuming pusillanimous deliberative process. but in the late 1940s, this doctrine was developed as a response to stalinism, and was basically understood as a necessary counter-dictatorship that could respond to the actions of a dictatorship. so in this case, it appears that the cheney-addington crew have made the us into a kind of terrorist state so as to be able to respond to "terrorism"... and i think the motivations are to some extent what i thought they were for the iraq war--prolonging a cold-war type arrangement, using nationalism to justify a very reactionary political order, all in the interests of maintaining conservatism in the way it had been since world war 2--and since the 1970s in particular. but the unitary executive doctrine seems to go beyond that into something else that i'm not sure about--i think it really is a theory of dictatorship dressed in american pseudo-democratic language, and is a manifestation of a weakness in the republican form of government (as over against a more democratic form)--which in the historical sense you see in the drift of plato from the republic to the laws, which is a very reactionary text in which the show of the republic is run by "night committees." what i'm not sure about is the motivation. it seems then to be about power for its own sake...but sometimes i am not sure that's adequate. a constitutional crisis comes about when the actions of a particular government reveals design problems in the framework itself. like i said, in a more rigid type of system, we'd be in a crisis now. and like i said, i'm not sure that the inability of the american system to register crisis is a good thing at all. === dc--thanks...
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
07-02-2008, 07:49 AM | #145 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
Bush's three Attorneys General have repeatedly acted to attempt to provide legal justification for his policies and actions rather than to perform their mandated role "to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law...." The AG is NOT the president's attorney...he/she is the "peoples" attorney. One possible solution? Remove the AG from the Exec Branch and make it an independent position that transcends one president's term to ensure some level of non-partisanship.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-02-2008 at 07:54 AM.. |
|
07-02-2008, 08:10 AM | #146 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
i think that is a fine idea, dc--would it follow that the executive would no longer be able to appoint the ag and/or olc offices? i would think it does. would these offices therefore become aspects of the legislative branch? would that complicate or alter relations between the 3 branches?
what do you make of the motives behind the cheney/addington crew?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
07-02-2008, 08:35 AM | #147 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
|
|
07-02-2008, 09:42 AM | #148 (permalink) | |||||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
On issues such has detaining enemy combatants and questioning techniques - Bush clearly let it be known what he was doing long before Congress seriously addressed these issues (I know Republicans fault). I imagine they were to busy investigating steroids in baseball and other weighty matters. Every vote mattered in Congress on every issue. Why make excuses for the people who did not support the war and the actions of Bush, yet either implicitly or explicitly gave him the authority. So again, I question were the words B.S. or did they actually support Bush? I don't see this as a Constitutional crisis. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Clearly all of these issues were on the table in 2005 and earlier. No real action was taken, why? Why didn't Congress confront Bush right then and there? Why didn't they use their power then? Here is another thing I found, Bush had the support of Congress and was not acting unilaterally. Quote:
And as we sit today, is Congress acting on the issue of what to actually do with these detainees? Has any Senator volunteered their state for holding these people while we wait for their trials? Has Congress given any legislative guidelines to our military on how they are supposed to carryout criminal investigations on a war time battle field? Everything Bush has done is wrong, perhaps now is the time to present an alternative, rather than just complaining. Perhaps our Presidential candidates can tell us what they would do, rather than wasting time on who is a patriot.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 07-02-2008 at 10:45 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|||||
07-02-2008, 10:45 AM | #149 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
ace--i really do not understand the point of your entire line of argument.
if all you're trying to show is that the democrats in congress fell down--repeatedly--in the face of an administration which they assumed (apparently) to be operating in good faith until around 2006, then there's no argument. there really isn't. so what's your point? but what you seem to want to erase is the fact that the republicans controlled both houses AND the administration was operating in a clandestine fashion (signing orders, for example) EVEN IN THAT CONTEXT--and the source for this trajectory was the unitary theory of the executive--cheney/addington. since 2006, there has been a certain amount of recalibration of power, but even so (a) the bush administration is still is power and the game ain't over yet, and (b) the numbers in congress are tight enough and republican "party discipline" only recently having imploded to some extent, any meaningful, serious investigation is difficult to mount. there is no argument about any of this---you keep going back to this "well, congress did x.." thing----it really makes no sense---you seem to be fighting an imaginary battle. the problem that i keep pointing out is that the existing system enables actions like those of the administration, and that is *in itself* a problem of the structure of the system. i've laid out a couple of historical frames which i think explain why these particular people have exploited these system weaknesses for their own purposes--but they *are* weaknesses. changing them--getting rid of them--requires a redesign of at least some basic features of the system itself---and as i keep saying, in a **different** type of constitutional system, this would already *be* a constitutional crisis--note the tense of the verb ace--it's in the subjunctive. i think that in this particular situation, the amorphousness/flexibility of the american system functions to erase structural problems. you might confuse this with stability--or you might argue that it enables a form of denial. i am agnostic on this at the moment. my point is that the seam that the neo-cons have been working, which enables the de facto formation of a bizarre type of executive branch-as-collective-dictatorship for a period of 4 years *is* a problem--and it is a problem raised by these particular people, but is not specific to them. so while the situation is a matter of fact, and involves the right, the preconditions are not specific to the republicans--the bush people did not invent this. just to be clear. it's curious, though, that in many ways the administration seemed to want to disable the functioning of government (remember fema?) while in others they want an executive which operates with NO accountability (signing orders)... strange business. shame you're so obsessed with this non-point you've been making for a *long* time that you can't see this as problematic.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
07-02-2008, 10:58 AM | #150 (permalink) | |||||
Junkie
Location: Ventura County
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." |
|||||
07-02-2008, 10:59 AM | #151 (permalink) | ||||
Banned
|
I don't know how any of you will react to this, but it doesn't inspire any confidence in Obama, as a candidate of principle, when I read quotes from one of his campaign's advisors that try to advance the same lies about FISA "expiring", as Bush has communicated to us for months now:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
FISA itself was never set to expire if no new law was passed, it would simply revert, this August to the language, "modernized" at least 50 times over the last 30 years....that FISA contained before temporary changes passed in congress in August, 2007: Quote:
|
||||
07-03-2008, 09:19 AM | #152 (permalink) |
Banned
|
Rat bastid, MUST READ: new court ruling about FiSA law breaking: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ain/index.html "Our political elite is guilty of doing what it habitually does....letting rhe political and corporate elite off the hook for it's intentional lawbreaking." .....Rat bastid, IMO, only one of two things can be going on with Obama's reversal on passage of this FISA bill....either he is participating in 'letting the political and corporate elite off the hook for it's intentional lawbreaking'....or, he is clueless as to what this is about. Either way...he is not worth your barely questioning support. You can vote for him, as I am resigned to hsving to do, but you donlt hsve to like having to do it.
Last edited by host; 07-04-2008 at 05:57 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
07-03-2008, 09:38 AM | #153 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Host....a federal court ruling yesterday may have an impact as well. The judge ruled, in effect, that Bush acted illegally by circumventing FISA.
Quote:
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-03-2008 at 09:41 AM.. |
|
07-03-2008, 10:32 AM | #154 (permalink) |
Banned
|
dux... the linked piece in my post is about Bush '41 appointee, Judge Walker's ruling, as well. This is the third federal judge, of judges actually ruling on the merits of plaintiff's arguments, to rule in very similar manner, and against the warrantless surveillance. All of this opinion from judges will probably be moot after next tuesday's senate vote. But, that is a prime reason for the passage of the bill....toke the lawbreaking determinations away from the pervue of the courts to better protect the political and corporate elite from any consequences of their knowingly breaking the law. Abetting that goes against the image and rhetoric of s candidate of "hope, reform, and unity", IMO. If this isn't something to recoil at, what would be?
|
07-03-2008, 11:43 AM | #155 (permalink) |
Darth Papa
Location: Yonder
|
I've already read that article, host. I'll go on record right now saying I'm not happy with how Obama is handling (or, actually, not handling) this issue. His shift "toward the center", whatever that means, over the last week or two is troubling.
I still believe he's a strong candidate, and I suspect he's being pushed around by party bigwig handlers who have strongarmed the last several Democratic presidential candidates toward the center, costing us the white house in every case. Bubba did it in '92 and it worked, so now it's hammer to be used on any old bolt or screw. Never mind it's a losing strategy. I only pray there's enough wind under Obama's sails to weather it. |
07-09-2008, 10:04 AM | #156 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
We're currently on the eve of the Senate vote which will replace existing (and perfectly functional) FISA law with a bill that expands executive power, grants retroactive community to telecoms who illegally cooperated in spying on Americans, and that will continue to destroy the constitutional right to privacy (it includes spying on Americans). Here's the kicker: 70 senators still haven't even been briefed on the bill. They don't even know what they're being asked to grant immunity for.
Based on precedence, several Democrats will cross the divide and support this legislative garbage. It will pass, and the telecoms will be given retroactive immunity. Nothing short of a Fight Club-esque "project mayhem" will be able to hold anyone accountable for anything when it comes to wiretapping. Bush committed a felony at least 30 times and he's going to get a pass. |
07-09-2008, 02:34 PM | #157 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
i'm not going to get into this deeply, but I did want to comment on the "unitary executive" theory. People are confusing this with the scope of executive power, which is a different issue.
First sentence of Article II of the Const says (in paraphrase) the executive power of the US shall be vested in a President. The "unitary executive" theory says this sentence means that whatever executive power of the US is, it resides in the president and not elsewhere. Only one executive. That's the unitary executive theory. It tells you nothing about the content of the executive power and it tells you nothing about the scope of the executive power. It tells you only who has it. So, for example, Congress can't administer the Dept of Transportation because that's an executive function. The real argument that has been going on is not over the unitary executive, but over the content and scope of the President's power. Different issue. Using the wrong label for it confuses the analysis. |
07-09-2008, 02:51 PM | #158 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
loquitor.....here's a legal question for you. Is there a sovereign immunity issue protecting Bush after he leaves office? Would it extend to persons beyond Bush...like Gonzales
If, as the next president, Obama authorizes his AG to investigate Bush's terrorist surveillence program and finds reasonable cause to believe it was illegal....can an indictment of Bush (and/or Gonzales) be presented to a grand jury on the basis of: Quote:
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-09-2008 at 02:59 PM.. |
|
07-09-2008, 03:04 PM | #159 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
thanks for the clarification, loquitor---addington et al compress their position into the longer-term question you raise as if they're just working this area---but it's not the case, i don't think.
what do you see as the similarities or differences, though (between the addington/cheney theory of the executive and the prerogatives of the president in more traditional language)?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
07-09-2008, 03:27 PM | #160 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
actually, Addington was pretty straight about this when he was grilled last month, I forget by whom. He has a real attitude problem - even over the videotape you could smell his contempt. But the answer he gave was on the money: all the executive power, one president. The questioner wasn't smart enough to ask the next question, which is, "how broad is that executive power and what oversight ability/responsibility does Congress have?" But Congresscritters not being smart enough is not a new development.
In actuality it's not quite as clean as I was suggesting - there are certain executive functions that can be split off in certain circumstances (see, e.g., Morrison v Olson) - but as a general proposition it is absolutely true that the president is the repository of the executive power. How that fits with, say, independent regulatory agencies (as opposed to regulatory agencies that are in the executive branch) is a different question. And of course all this tells you nothing about the content and scope of that power. |
Tags |
act, bill, bush, corporatist, dem, leaders, lying, obama, rights, stealing |
|
|