NationStates Jolt Archive

Who are these people? And how the hell did they wind up in control of the country?

Josh Marshall (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_06_06.php#003046) dissects this WSJ article now available here (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/06/07/0988582) that deals with the Abu Ghraib scandal and the idea that--and I quote--authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

To paraphrase Jon Stewart, "Wha?" (Imagine me rubbing my eyes in disbelief right here--it's about what's happened.) Authority to set aside laws is inherent in the president? Let's make sure we fully understand what's being argued here--that the president has the power to set aside any law he or she doesn't like and there's nothing that any of the other branches of the government can do about it.

To hell with the 2000 election--this is a Constitutional crisis. If these people are actually going to argue this and get away with it, then the system of checks and balances that has served us well for the last 200+ years is gone. Kaput. Dead as the proverbial doornail.

I've always been loathe to use the word treason--it has a very specific definition in the Constitution and it's overused by loudmouthed Manchurian Candidate wannabes (Ann Coulter, Tom DeLay--make your own list), but I'm ready now. This is the kind of action that--especially in conjunction with the arguments put forth in the Padilla case--borders on treason. It's an attempt to overthrow the current system of government and replace it with a dictatorship--even constitutional monarchs have less power than the Bush administration is claiming here.

So why am I ready to call it treason? Simply put--if the Bush administration is arguing that the executive branch is beyond question or control and is above the law (which is exactly what Nixon argued), then they are seeking to usurp the power granted to the Congress, to the courts, to the states and to we the people in the Constitution.

This is beyond partisanship. I respect a number of members of the Republican party--I've even voted for them in the past and would not hesitate to do so again if I thought they were the best candidates for the position. These people in power have betrayed the principles that the Republican party has stood for since the 1850s. Cast them out. Denounce them. Take a stand.

I'll tell you how important this is to me. Even though it would hurt John Kerry's chances in November, I would rather see someone like John McCain challenge George Bush for the nomination at the convention if it meant that the Republican party could get its soul back.

I would have expected at least one person to call me a commie or something by now. Am I losing my touch?

commie!!!!

comrade!

Fucking commie. DIEEEEEE TRAITOR!

I'm bumping this because I want to see what the right-wingers on this board have to say about this blatant subversion of the Constitution of the United States.

To me...

The President should be made to adhere to every law that the rest of us are.

Not a subversion, revisionist propaganda is more like it.

Great, I want to become president and kill people just like my Hero Bush Jr.

If it makes you feel any better, one need only look to Colin Powell to find a republican about ready to stand up to Bush. If you've followed a lot of his actions, the man has virtually done everything but publicly endorse Kerry. I wouldn't be surprised if he resigned before the election arrived.

Great, I want to become president and kill people just like my Hero Bush Jr.

What..?...FDR, a Democrat set us in motion to be able to kill not just millions..but billions of people when he began the Manhattan Project and launched us into the nuclear age..his successor Harry Truman..a Democrat is the only President or Head of State to actually USE those weapons..not once but twice..on a nation the US would have beaten anyway..although at considerable more loss to US personnel and equipment then was acceptable.

Truman...got us into Korea..a 3 yr stalemate in which nothing got resolved..Truman..a Democrat....Kennedy...a Democrat..got us initially involved with Vietnam..only to have it expanded under LBJ...a Democrat..I'm seeing a pattern of involment here.

Great, I want to become president and kill people just like my Hero Bush Jr.

What..?...FDR, a Democrat set us in motion to be able to kill not just millions..but billions of people when he began the Manhattan Project and launched us into the nuclear age..his successor Harry Truman..a Democrat is the only President or Head of State to actually USE those weapons..not once but twice..on a nation the US would have beaten anyway..although at considerable more loss to US personnel and equipment then was acceptable.

Truman...got us into Korea..a 3 yr stalemate in which nothing got resolved..Truman..a Democrat....Kennedy...a Democrat..got us initially involved with Vietnam..only to have it expanded under LBJ...a Democrat..I'm seeing a pattern of involment here.

Er, what's your point? Bush has gotten us involved in Iraq AND increased anit-US sentiment globally to a record fever pitch, thus providing a fertile recruitment pool for the terrorist organizations he is supposedly working against and making the entire world less safe.

Great, I want to become president and kill people just like my Hero Bush Jr.

What..?...FDR, a Democrat set us in motion to be able to kill not just millions..but billions of people when he began the Manhattan Project and launched us into the nuclear age..his successor Harry Truman..a Democrat is the only President or Head of State to actually USE those weapons..not once but twice..on a nation the US would have beaten anyway..although at considerable more loss to US personnel and equipment then was acceptable.

Truman...got us into Korea..a 3 yr stalemate in which nothing got resolved..Truman..a Democrat....Kennedy...a Democrat..got us initially involved with Vietnam..only to have it expanded under LBJ...a Democrat..I'm seeing a pattern of involment here.

Er, what's your point? Bush has gotten us involved in Iraq AND increased anit-US sentiment globally to a record fever pitch, thus providing a fertile recruitment pool for the terrorist organizations he is supposedly working against and making the entire world less safe.

My point was the allusion that becoming President like Bush Jr somehow implied Bush was a premediatated murderer.."kill just like my hero Bush Jr" is not solely the domain of Republican Administrations..some of the largest killers were in fact...Democrats...

Great, I want to become president and kill people just like my Hero Bush Jr.

What..?...FDR, a Democrat set us in motion to be able to kill not just millions..but billions of people when he began the Manhattan Project and launched us into the nuclear age..his successor Harry Truman..a Democrat is the only President or Head of State to actually USE those weapons..not once but twice..on a nation the US would have beaten anyway..although at considerable more loss to US personnel and equipment then was acceptable.

Truman...got us into Korea..a 3 yr stalemate in which nothing got resolved..Truman..a Democrat....Kennedy...a Democrat..got us initially involved with Vietnam..only to have it expanded under LBJ...a Democrat..I'm seeing a pattern of involment here.Bullshit. A pattern, come on :roll: Lincoln was a republican, his was the civil war. Bush I was a republican, he took us to the gulf the first time. Reagan was republican, Granada. Bush II took us to Afghanistan and Iraq. Nixon got involved in Cambodia, now that was a bad one. You're able to be very selective about your history. Theres no correspondance between Democrat/Republican and who goes to war. Theres barely even a correspondance between Democrat/Republican and Liberal/Conservative, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about here.

Great, I want to become president and kill people just like my Hero Bush Jr.

What..?...FDR, a Democrat set us in motion to be able to kill not just millions..but billions of people when he began the Manhattan Project and launched us into the nuclear age..his successor Harry Truman..a Democrat is the only President or Head of State to actually USE those weapons..not once but twice..on a nation the US would have beaten anyway..although at considerable more loss to US personnel and equipment then was acceptable.

Truman...got us into Korea..a 3 yr stalemate in which nothing got resolved..Truman..a Democrat....Kennedy...a Democrat..got us initially involved with Vietnam..only to have it expanded under LBJ...a Democrat..I'm seeing a pattern of involment here.Bullshit. A pattern, come on :roll: Lincoln was a republican, his was the civil war. Bush I was a republican, he took us to the gulf the first time. Reagan was republican, Granada. Bush II took us to Afghanistan and Iraq. Nixon got involved in Cambodia, now that was a bad one. You're able to be very selective about your history. Theres no correspondance between Democrat/Republican and who goes to war. Theres barely even a correspondance between Democrat/Republican and Liberal/Conservative, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about here.

If you hadn't read the above post...I was trying to allude that just as many Democrat Administrations have gotten us involved in conflicts as Republian and the issue that somehow it's only been Bush Jr that has had combat operations commenced under his administration is a weak argument

My point was the allusion that becoming President like Bush Jr somehow implied Bush was a premediatated murderer.."kill just like my hero Bush Jr" is not solely the domain of Republican Administrations..some of the largest killers were in fact...Democrats...

So you deny nothing and try and create a Republican/Democrat pissing contest instead? That honestly is how your argument was angled. Amazing that bush supporters no longer deny that this invasion was unbased.

Great, I want to become president and kill people just like my Hero Bush Jr.

What..?...FDR, a Democrat set us in motion to be able to kill not just millions..but billions of people when he began the Manhattan Project and launched us into the nuclear age..his successor Harry Truman..a Democrat is the only President or Head of State to actually USE those weapons..not once but twice..on a nation the US would have beaten anyway..although at considerable more loss to US personnel and equipment then was acceptable.

Truman...got us into Korea..a 3 yr stalemate in which nothing got resolved..Truman..a Democrat....Kennedy...a Democrat..got us initially involved with Vietnam..only to have it expanded under LBJ...a Democrat..I'm seeing a pattern of involment here.Bullshit. A pattern, come on :roll: Lincoln was a republican, his was the civil war. Bush I was a republican, he took us to the gulf the first time. Reagan was republican, Granada. Bush II took us to Afghanistan and Iraq. Nixon got involved in Cambodia, now that was a bad one. You're able to be very selective about your history. Theres no correspondance between Democrat/Republican and who goes to war. Theres barely even a correspondance between Democrat/Republican and Liberal/Conservative, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about here.

If you hadn't read the above post...I was trying to allude that just as many Democrat Administrations have gotten us involved in conflicts as Republian and the issue that somehow it's only been Bush Jr that has had combat operations commenced under his administration is a weak argumentRight, but aside from you, who brought anything about Republican/Democrat into it?

My point was the allusion that becoming President like Bush Jr somehow implied Bush was a premediatated murderer.."kill just like my hero Bush Jr" is not solely the domain of Republican Administrations..some of the largest killers were in fact...Democrats...

So you deny nothing and try and create a Republican/Democrat pissing contest instead? That honestly is how your argument was angled. Amazing that bush supporters no longer deny that this invasion was unbased.

Deny?..on the contrary..I'm pretty sure we were able to send some wahabbist terrorists, baathist thugs, foreign fighters to heaven with their 70 virgins..at least that is what I hope we did..and if we can give the Iraqis a government freely elected by themselves in the bargain so much the better.....all I know is that taking Hussein from power was a good thing, no one shall be able to convince me otherwise. There are any number of reasons why it was good...it's just that most here would rather concentrate on only one...why is that?

If you hadn't read the above post...I was trying to allude that just as many Democrat Administrations have gotten us involved in conflicts as Republian and the issue that somehow it's only been Bush Jr that has had combat operations commenced under his administration is a weak argument

My distaste is not limited to Bush, however as Bush is the most immediate source of world instability and naked aggresion as well as the fact he and his cabinet would like to be above the law which specifically attacks the Constitution of this country, then I will reserve my advocacy for him. Bush got us involved in Iraq and his actions are breeding terrorists worldwide. Bush Senior got us involved in Iraq and Regan/Bush financed, advised and supplied Iraq to make it the military "threat" it is today while also getting us involved in the Iran-Contra fiasco. So if you want to look at recent trends, I would say the Republican's are proving to be far more warmongering than any Democratic trend.

Great, I want to become president and kill people just like my Hero Bush Jr.

What..?...FDR, a Democrat set us in motion to be able to kill not just millions..but billions of people when he began the Manhattan Project and launched us into the nuclear age..his successor Harry Truman..a Democrat is the only President or Head of State to actually USE those weapons..not once but twice..on a nation the US would have beaten anyway..although at considerable more loss to US personnel and equipment then was acceptable.

Truman...got us into Korea..a 3 yr stalemate in which nothing got resolved..Truman..a Democrat....Kennedy...a Democrat..got us initially involved with Vietnam..only to have it expanded under LBJ...a Democrat..I'm seeing a pattern of involment here.

First off, Eisenhower was the initial president to have involvement with Vietnam, not Kennedy. If you remember, Eisenhower was not a Democrat. The Manhattan Project was a race by every nation involved in World War II. You can't blame FDR for this. You'd be better off blaming the Nazis for making the initial attempts. In case you didn't know, Germany actually tried to deliver parts for a "dirty" bomb to Japan following their surrender. It was on a sub that never made it to Japan. Also on this sub was the makings of a jet engine. With Nazi Germany's rocket capabilities, had they been the first to achieve an atomic weapon, the results could have been devastating.

I have nothing to say about Truman's usage of the atomic weaponry save for the fact that it was estimated that it would take several hundred thousand troops at extreme loss in order to secure Japan's main island. Its likely that the atomic weapons did little to force Japan into surrendering. Its more likely that Russia's declaration of war against Japan was the deciding factor for Japanese surrender. I'd be happy to debate that fact any time.

Truman was president at the time that the United Nations sent in forces in Korea. It was not an action of the United States in direct conflict with the wishes of the United Nations. It was a true, multinational effort.

Bush has thumbed his nose at the world time and time again. There is no comparison with presidents of the past and the actions of the present. However, if we were to discuss the past, it was Reagan, a Republican, who negotiated with terrorists, thereby ending America's longtime stance of never negotiating with terrorists. It was Reagan who sold arms to terrorists. It was Reagan who worked out a deal so that hostages wouldn't be released while Carter was president. It was Reagan that got us involved in Grenada. It was Bush that got us involved in the Gulf War.

Deny?..on the contrary..I'm pretty sure we were able to send some wahabbist terrorists, baathist thugs, foreign fighters to heaven with their 70 virgins..at least that is what I hope we did..and if we can give the Iraqis a government freely elected by themselves in the bargain so much the better.....all I know is that taking Hussein from power was a good thing, no one shall be able to convince me otherwise. There are any number of reasons why it was good...it's just that most here would rather concentrate on only one...why is that?

Unfortunately, Bush has unleased the hydra of terrorisim with his ham-fisted colonial military tactics. For every terrorist we have imprisoned or killed, 10 more are ready and eager to spring into thier place.

And again, I will say this because no one has ever seemed to actually hear this argument. NO ONE EVER LIKED SADDAM. Except, perhaps, for Regan/Bush/Rumsfeld back in the 80s. However, since then, the entire world recognized him as a threat and was moving against him. The problem is that Bush took it upon himself to lead our country in a virtually unilateral strike against a sovergn power against the wishes of the rest of the world and then, once he had dismissed them symbolically, his cabinent dismissed them rhetorically as well. It was one of the most spectacular examples of poor diplomacy on the record.

I dont really know what is so bad about "unilateralism" as you call it. Other countries have meager and poor militaries, and could not get the job done without the US being a lead force.

If there were any other countries, besides the at least 20+ already involved, do you think there would be any less American troops involved?

Just because France mightve sent 1000 infantry doesnt mean that we would have any less troops in Iraq. Its not, "oh 1000 foreign troops coming in? Remove 1000 US troops!" US troops are not equal to foreign troops, they are far superior.

Your so called Unilaterism consists of the following:



Albania - 71 non-combat troops in northern Iraq.

Azerbaijan - 150 troops for law enforcement and protection of religious and historic monuments in Iraq.

Bulgaria - 485 troops patrolling Karbala, south of Baghdad. An additional 289 are to be sent.

Central America and the Caribbean - Dominican Republic (300 troops), Honduras (360) and Nicaragua (120) are assisting a Spanish-led brigade in south-central Iraq.

Czech Republic - 296 troops and three civilians running a field hospital in Basra, and a small detachment of military police.

Denmark - 406 troops, including light infantry, medics and military police. An additional 90 soldiers are being sent.

Georgia - 69 troops, including 34 special forces soldiers, 15 engineers and 20 medics.

Estonia - 55 troops.

Hungary - 300 transportation troops.

Italy - 3,000 troops.

Japan - Delays a decision Thursday on sending troops to Iraq, citing security concerns after a surge in anti-coalition violence.

Kazakhstan - 27 troops.

Latvia - 106 troops.

Lithuania - 90 troops.

Macedonia - 28 troops.

Moldova - Dozens of de-mining specialists and medics.

Netherlands - 1,106 troops, including 650 marines, three Chinook transport helicopters, a logistics team, a field hospital, a commando contingent, military police and a unit of 230 military engineers.

New Zealand - 61 army engineers for reconstruction work in southern Iraq.

Norway - 156 troops, including engineers and mine clearers.

Philippines - 177 troops.

Poland - 2,400 troops, command of one of three military sectors in Iraq.

Portugal - 120 police officers.

Romania - 800 troops, including 405 infantry, 149 de-mining specialists and 100 military police, along with a 56-member special intelligence detachment.

Slovakia - 82 military engineers.

South Korea - 675 non-combat troops with more forces on the way. But Seoul will cap its force at 3,000 rebuffing Washington's request for additional soldiers.

Thailand - 400 troops assigned to humanitarian operations.

Ukraine - 1,640 troops.

United Kingdom - 7,400 troops, with an additional 1,200 planned.



True, they are not substantial forces. But thats the point. America will always have to take the lead. You cannot expect countries like Romania or a central american country to send a contingent of 15,000 special forces heavy armed commando tanks of death, and you can't call it unilateralism when they don't.



***Source:http://xo.typepad.com/blog/2003/11/list_of_countri.html***

In Korea, there were 932,964 troops under UN control facing 260,000 North Korean and 2.6 million Chinese troops. Little bit different in terms of coalition yes?

I dont really know what is so bad about "unilateralism" as you call it. Other countries have meager and poor militaries, and could not get the job done without the US being a lead force.

The problem is that he acted against the wishes of practically every other nation on the planet and then, once he had done what he damn well pleased, he insulted those nations that didn't join in. That is the issue of unilateralisim. Not that we have the majority of troops over there, but that in the forum of international debate and consensus, George W. Bush delivered an unjustified and unwarrented political slap to the collective faces of the nations of the world.


If there were any other countries, besides the at least 20+ already involved, do you think there would be any less American troops involved?

The point is we are not sending a unified message because Bush refused to work through established channels, the same channels that he claims to be enforcing by his actions. How can he claim to enforce UN resolutions while acting against the consensus of the UN? This is not about troops size, it's about global political message and about the dangerous and destabilizing tactic of preemptive strike.


Just because France mightve sent 1000 infantry doesnt mean that we would have any less troops in Iraq. Its not, "oh 1000 foreign troops coming in? Remove 1000 US troops!" US troops are not equal to foreign troops, they are far superior.

That is not the point. The point is that the war was built on lies and shaky intelligence and the world consensus was against it.


True, they are not substantial forces. But thats the point. America will always have to take the lead. You cannot expect countries like Romania or a central american country to send a contingent of 15,000 special forces heavy armed commando tanks of death, and you can't call it unilateralism when they don't.

Yes you can when the troops they send are token forces and they do so against the will of their people. You're trying to make this about troop size when that isn't the issue. The issue is that, in a nation of law that is sworn to uphold it and preserve peace and freedom, we acted against the wishes of the majority of nations on the planet and did whatever we wanted without considering the consequences.

100% agree, Incertonia. of course, what else is new, right? :)

seriously, though, i am all for John McCain. I'm not in love with Kerry, and i would like nothing more that to see a Presidential election where both candidates were deserving of consideration (something i have yet to see in my admittedly brief lifetime). Bush is an embarassment to the Republican party and the values it once stood for, not to mention an embarassment to the American system of government. he is indeed quite guilty of treason if he supports what you describe, as is any inidividual, Republican or Democrat, who does likewise.

but then, these days the word "treason" can only be used to refer to a non-neo-con or a person who questions the word of Emperor Dubya. so maybe we shouldn't say these bastards are traitors...if we do then they'll lock us up with out a trial, and that will prove us wrong, won't it?

Thanks for coming back to the original subject, Spoffin, since the thread had drifted into yet another good guys/bad guys in US politics discussion, something I was not trying to start.

I'm talking about the administration--not Republicans in general--and I'm not suggesting that Democrats have been the greatest statesmen in all history either.

I'm talking about a Constitutional crisis--the sort of crisis we farced when the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon had to turn over his tapes and there was some real question if he would or not--the Court has no enforcement power, remember. Only public pressure and Nixon's respect for the position of the court prevented him from giving them the finger.

But it's becoming pretty clear to me that this administration doesn't share Nixon's sense of propriety--and when did you ever imagine you'd hear those words. Conspiracy theorists have been talking up the possibility that Bush will find a way to cancel the elections in November--a Code Red or something--or simply refuse to leave when he loses. A month ago it was easy to dismiss that as a possibility. It's getting more and more difficult because of things like this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3783869.stm

Thanks Aldaman--that's a lot more concise than the WSJ article from yesterday--more a summary--but still covers the main points.

And interestingly, Ashcroft says, "This administration rejects torture."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/08/prisoner.abuse.whitehouse.ap/index.html

I'm talking about the administration--not Republicans in general--and I'm not suggesting that Democrats have been the greatest statesmen in all history either.

For the sake of argument ...
Your assumption of course is that military policy in Gitmo, and elsewhere in the system, was changed by this particular administration.
What's to say that the methods used have not been in place since the time of Kennedy?

DP

Actually, RG, I'm not talking about Gitmo. I'm talking about the memo that the Wall Street Journal--not exactly a liberal-friendly publicantion--wrote about yesterday in which it argued that the President had the power to set aside the law as regards torture and prisoner abuse.

That ought to bug anyone--the idea that the President is able to set aside the law--and not just this one, any law--because he's the President.

The reason this gets to me so strongly is because the overriding principle upon which this nation was founded was that no man was to be above the law. That's why we got away from kings, from a program in which the state was tied up in a single person, from an all powerful executive. The idea, the notion, was that we were a nation founded on ideals, not on divine right or on pure unadulterated power. That ideal was that the law treated you equally, no matter if you were rich or poor, average voter or President.

And now this administration argues otherwise, that there is indeed one person who is not beholden to the law--the President. And if the President isn't beholden to the law on prisoner abuse, then what's to stop him from being beholden to federal election law? Not much. That's what worries me--this isn't a slippery slope. This is a precipice.

Actually, RG, I'm not talking about Gitmo. I'm talking about the memo that the Wall Street Journal--not exactly a liberal-friendly publicantion--wrote about yesterday in which it argued that the President had the power to set aside the law as regards torture and prisoner abuse.

That ought to bug anyone--the idea that the President is able to set aside the law--and not just this one, any law--because he's the President.

The reason this gets to me so strongly is because the overriding principle upon which this nation was founded was that no man was to be above the law. That's why we got away from kings, from a program in which the state was tied up in a single person, from an all powerful executive. The idea, the notion, was that we were a nation founded on ideals, not on divine right or on pure unadulterated power. That ideal was that the law treated you equally, no matter if you were rich or poor, average voter or President.

And now this administration argues otherwise, that there is indeed one person who is not beholden to the law--the President. And if the President isn't beholden to the law on prisoner abuse, then what's to stop him from being beholden to federal election law? Not much. That's what worries me--this isn't a slippery slope. This is a precipice.

Actually Incertonia, the article does discuss al Qadea prisoners in Gitmo and WSJ is not arguing for or against any particular interrogation method; rather they are describing a difference of opinion between Pentagon and other military lawyers.
As far as GW or any other President, past or future, instituting an anarchy, the checks and balances of the Constitution have proven to be darn resilient in maintaining our nation's democracy.
In regards to maintain our freedoms, frankly I'm more concerned with protection of our national security.

DP

DP

DP

DP

"Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither freedom or safety."

Actually Incertonia, the article does discuss al Qadea prisoners in Gitmo and WSJ is not arguing for or against any particular interrogation method; rather they are describing a difference of opinion between Pentagon and other military lawyers.
As far as GW or any other President, past or future, instituting an anarchy, the checks and balances of the Constitution have proven to be darn resilient in maintaining our nation's democracy.
In regards to maintain our freedoms, frankly I'm more concerned with protection of our national security.RG, you're missing my point. To me, Gitmo and the treatment of the prisoners there is secondary to the principle that this memo puts out--namely, that the President is not only above the law, but has the unilateral ability to set aside the law if it's inconvenient. I agree that the system of checks and balances has worked well in the past, but that's largely because the different branches have respected the checks the others have placed on them.

This is different. This is potentially--and I emphasize the potential part here--a usurpation of both the legislative and judicial branches power, the legislative because the ability to pass laws means nothing if one person can overturn or set them aside by fiat and the judicial because the power to interpret law means nothing if one person can set them aside regardless of precedent.

The underlying principle is what concerns me. Had this been done in any other context, as it was nearly tried in Nixon's case, the consequences would be just as dire. What worries me is that because this ostensibly involves people considered to be enemies (not that there's overwhelming proof of that either), the public might be willing to let it slide. We can't let that happen.

"Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither freedom or safety."

Wish i knew who said that. Its too true. This administration wishes to take away many of our basic freedoms as set forth in the constitution. So how dare they say that the Iraq war was fought for freedom. That is an outright lie, just like the other justifications we were given for the war. I thank Incertonia because we have to make people aware of things like this. If we do not it is an open invitation to strip us of our rights, which Bush would gladly do.

"Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither freedom or safety."

Wish i knew who said that. Its too true. This administration wishes to take away many of our basic freedoms as set forth in the constitution. So how dare they say that the Iraq war was fought for freedom. That is an outright lie, just like the other justifications we were given for the war. I thank Incertonia because we have to make people aware of things like this. If we do not it is an open invitation to strip us of our rights, which Bush would gladly do.That's a paraphrase of a quote by Benjamin Franklin. Wish I knew the exact quote, but it's something like "those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither."

"Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither freedom or safety."

Wish i knew who said that. Its too true. This administration wishes to take away many of our basic freedoms as set forth in the constitution. So how dare they say that the Iraq war was fought for freedom. That is an outright lie, just like the other justifications we were given for the war. I thank Incertonia because we have to make people aware of things like this. If we do not it is an open invitation to strip us of our rights, which Bush would gladly do.That's a paraphrase of a quote by Benjamin Franklin. Wish I knew the exact quote, but it's something like "those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither."

It's also attributed to Thomas Jefferson in the form, "Those who sacrifice freedom for safety, deserve neither." It's unconfirmed, however, and is equally attributable to both Franklin and Jefferson, both excellent men who's words we would do well to heed.

Now I'm really ready to call it treason.

I'm no lawyer, so I was a bit hesitant because I was afraid I was perhaps overreacting to the WSJ article I originally posted. But not now. (http://www.discourse.net/archives/2004/06/apologia_pro_tormento_analyzing_the_first_56_pages_of_the_walker_working_group_report_aka_the_tortur e_memo.html)

University of Miami Law Professor Michael Froomkin has gone through a redacted version of the memo and has come to this conclusion.
I cannot exaggerate how pernicious this argument is, and how incompatible it is with a free society. The Constitution does not make the President a King. This memo does....

If anyone in the higher levels of government acted in reliance on this advice, those persons should be impeached. If they authorized torture, it may be that they have committed, and should be tried for, war crimes. And, as we learned at Nuremberg, “I was just following orders” is NOT (and should not be) a defense.

They all ought to be in jail.

If not in jail, at least out of office. This is a direct attack against one of the founding principles of our society, the rejection of monarchy. Plus, it's suspiciously in line with the idea of a "Bush Dynasty".

this is why we have a supreme court
there is no need to scream treason or despair until the supreme court agrees with the bush administration or until the president overrules the supreme court.
i dont see that either one will happen so im not worried. aministrations propose all sorts of unconstitutional things, they get challenged then tossed out.

The latest from WSJ ...


In Face of Democrats' Pressure,
Ashcroft Denies Torture Practice

By SARA SCHAEFER MUÑOZ and JESS BRAVIN
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
June 9, 2004; Page A3

Under sharp questioning from Democratic senators, Attorney General John Ashcroft reiterated Bush administration claims that it doesn't allow prisoners to be tortured to extract information.

But he also refused to release internal policy documents that assert the president's power to disregard laws and international conventions prohibiting torture.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont led a charge on the Judiciary Committee to compel Mr. Ashcroft to release or discuss an internal legal memorandum that laid out legal arguments the administration could use to circumvent a law and treaty dealing with torture in setting guidelines for the interrogation of al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners. "Did your department issue a memorandum that would suggest that torture is allowed under certain circumstances as the press has reported?" asked Sen. Leahy, the committee's senior Democrat. "It could take a yes-or-no answer."

Mr. Ashcroft replied: "I'm not going to comment on the memos and advice that I give to executive departments of government." But he said he could "confirm that the president has not directed or ordered any conduct that would violate the Constitution" or federal law, including a Congressional antitorture statute.

The questioning arose after disclosure this week of a March 2003 draft report prepared by Defense Department lawyers, in which administration attorneys argued that President Bush has the constitutional authority to disregard both international treaties and federal laws banning torture and other cruel treatment of prisoners. The draft report, portions of which were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, was prepared in consultation with the Justice Department, and people who have seen the final report adopted in April 2003 say its legal conclusions weren't substantially different.

In addition, the Washington Post reported yesterday that an August 2002 Justice Department memorandum reached similar conclusions.

Mr. Ashcroft's appearance before lawmakers provided the forum for the administration's most high-level discussion of the torture question since news of the memos was disclosed. But he declined to say what advice he has given the president or the Pentagon on the topic. "For us to discuss all the legal ramifications of the war is not in our best interest, and it has never been in times of war," he said. But he said that the U.S. attorney in Alexandria, Va., whose jurisdiction includes the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency headquarters, had created a special team to investigate allegations of torture-law violations.

Mr. Ashcroft also told senators that there has been no presidential order that immunizes interrogators of al Qaeda suspects from prosecution.

When pressed by Sen. Edward Kennedy to say whether he agreed with the conclusions of the internal legal memo, Mr. Ashcroft declared that "first of all, this administration rejects torture." Moreover, he condemned the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, which has been captured in pictures and internal reports, and said it doesn't grow out of any administration policy directives. "The kind of atrocities which the senator has recited and which he has displayed in the photographs that he raised are being prosecuted by this administration," Mr. Ashcroft said. "They are being investigated by this administration. They are rejected by this administration. They are not pursuant to any order, directive or policy of this administration."

Still, Democrats on the panel were frustrated by Mr. Ashcroft's refusal to discuss the memo or turn it over to Congress. "You are not allowed, under our Constitution, not to answer our questions," said Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat."

Our systems of checks and balances is in full swing ...
The recent Congressional Committee frenzy however would appear to have hindered the Executive branch's ability to conduct its own investigation fully before having to participate in this type of forum....

Mr. Ashcroft replied: "I'm not going to comment on the memos and advice that I give to executive departments of government." But he said he could "confirm that the president has not directed or ordered any conduct that would violate the Constitution" or federal law, including a Congressional antitorture statute.

And of course the government has never lied.. Ok case closed. Ashcroft said it, so it must be true. I mean the Bush administration has such an excellent reputation for telling the truth.. :roll:

Mr. Ashcroft replied: "I'm not going to comment on the memos and advice that I give to executive departments of government." But he said he could "confirm that the president has not directed or ordered any conduct that would violate the Constitution" or federal law, including a Congressional antitorture statute.

And of course the government has never lied.. Ok case closed. Ashcroft said it, so it must be true. I mean the Bush administration has such an excellent reputation for telling the truth.. :roll:

The bigger issue, and the fear that Incertonia expressed at the beginning of this thread, was the robustness of our system of checks and balances.
What is being demonstrated by these hearings is the legislative branch's role in maintain a balance of power within our government.

A point to consider when evaluating the situation is given the frequency and veracity with which recent hearings have been conducted though, there appears to be some opportunism and grandstanding being done in the name of upholding the Constitution.
Investigation and appropriate action by the Executive branch in this situation have not been helped by the complexities imposed by these concurrent hearings.

Please note that Ashcroft said those words while simultaneously refusing to offer any backup for them. He refused to release the memo to the Congressional committee that the WSJ talked about--how the WSJ and Newsweek got copies is anyone's guess, but you can see the Newsweek version here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5166951/site/newsweek/). Also, take a close look at exactly what Ashcroft said.

Mr. Ashcroft replied: "I'm not going to comment on the memos and advice that I give to executive departments of government." But he said he could "confirm that the president has not directed or ordered any conduct that would violate the Constitution" or federal law, including a Congressional antitorture statute.

The thing about this statement is that the basis of the memo being discussed is the theory under which torture could be considered legal, and if Ashcroft and his Justice department was attempting to circumvent the will of the Congress, then of course he's going to say that the President hadn't ordered any conduct that would violate the Constitution or any federal law--he's covering his own ass.

Just because Ashcroft says that the President didn't violate the Constitution doesn't necessarily make it so--more accurate would be to say that the President didn't violate the Constitution as interpreted by Ashcroft. That's not quite the same thing, and that's very important, because the underlying theory put forward in this memo is that the President is an all-powerful executive.

On a side note, thanks for being so cordial in this discussion, RG--this could have quickly descended into name-calling and flaming and it hasn't. I appreciate it a lot.

I've never seen anything remotely this horrifying in my life.

Devil take what FDR did 50 years ago. We are discussing George Bush's performance now, and it is PATHETIC. He's claiming the right to imprison -American citizens- without charge, trial, or access to legal counsel for indefinite periods of time. And now he's claiming the right to torture people if necessary. This is not treason, but it IS conduct completely unbecoming of the head of a supposedly civilized nation. What will it be next, conservatives? Will he claim the right to arresting the families of the accused? Summary executions?? This may strike you as extremism, but if you don't put your feet down now, there's no telling where this slippery slope will take us! :evil:

I heard rumours of a CIA worldwide torture network whereby the CIA move prisoners to allied countries where there is a less than reputable human rights record. I read this in the British political magazine NewStatesmen.

I heard rumours of a CIA worldwide torture network whereby the CIA move prisoners to allied countries where there is a less than reputable human rights record. I read this in the British political magazine NewStatesmen.

Well, Iraq doesn't really have that good of a track record, so like THAT helped...

You know..there are good many Americans..myself included..in whether or not the kid gloves should be taken off..if it is worth it to sink to the level of the terrorist..if it meant saving American lives..and the information was with a person picked up in a sweep or by direct statements..could I put a pistol to his head and constantly click it..put a cigarette on his body...bleed him slowly....water torture.....there is a part of me that says yes....save the lives now....worry bout whether or not I could live with myself later.

You know..there are good many Americans..myself included..in whether or not the kid gloves should be taken off..if it is worth it to sink to the level of the terrorist..if it meant saving American lives..and the information was with a person picked up in a sweep or by direct statements..could I put a pistol to his head and constantly click it..put a cigarette on his body...bleed him slowly....water torture.....there is a part of me that says yes....save the lives now....worry bout whether or not I could live with myself later.There are plenty of people who think like you do, but do you know the real reason intelligence experts--and I'm talking about the real experts here--don't use torture?

It's not reliable.

If you torture someone long enough, they'll tell you anything to make it stop. They'll tell you what they think you want to hear, whether or not it's true, whether or not it's even possible. You torture someone long enough and they'll cop to being the guy on the grassy knoll, even if they were born in '78 and have never been to Dallas in their life. It doesn't work.

And the courts know it doesn't work--that's one of the biggest reasons that confessions extracted under duress are not allowed as evidence.

So be willing to live with yourself, but don't kid yourself into thinking that torturing enemies would make us any safer in the long run.

Please note that Ashcroft said those words while simultaneously refusing to offer any backup for them. He refused to release the memo to the Congressional committee that the WSJ talked about--how the WSJ and Newsweek got copies is anyone's guess, but you can see the Newsweek version here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5166951/site/newsweek/). Also, take a close look at exactly what Ashcroft said.

Mr. Ashcroft replied: "I'm not going to comment on the memos and advice that I give to executive departments of government." But he said he could "confirm that the president has not directed or ordered any conduct that would violate the Constitution" or federal law, including a Congressional antitorture statute.

The thing about this statement is that the basis of the memo being discussed is the theory under which torture could be considered legal, and if Ashcroft and his Justice department was attempting to circumvent the will of the Congress, then of course he's going to say that the President hadn't ordered any conduct that would violate the Constitution or any federal law--he's covering his own ass.

Just because Ashcroft says that the President didn't violate the Constitution doesn't necessarily make it so--more accurate would be to say that the President didn't violate the Constitution as interpreted by Ashcroft. That's not quite the same thing, and that's very important, because the underlying theory put forward in this memo is that the President is an all-powerful executive.

On a side note, thanks for being so cordial in this discussion, RG--this could have quickly descended into name-calling and flaming and it hasn't. I appreciate it a lot.

Agreed that just because Ashcroft says that the President didn't violate the Constitution doesn't necessarily make it so ...
However, the point I want to be considered is that the timing of these committee hearings does not allow the administration to provide a complete assessment of the situation.
Those called to give testimony need to be certain that the information they are sharing is relevant and accurate. Full disclosure can only occur once all the homework has been done and as of late we haven't afforded this administration the opportunity to be able to fully do its job in this regard.
Thanks ... I appreciate your approach in this discussion as well! :)

However, the point I want to be considered is that the timing of these committee hearings does not allow the administration to provide a complete assessment of the situation.
Those called to give testimony need to be certain that the information they are sharing is relevant and accurate. Full disclosure can only occur once all the homework has been done and as of late we haven't afforded this administration the opportunity to be able to fully do its job in this regard.
I would argue that the administration has had plenty of time to have a complete assessment--they should have done that while formulating the policies in the first place, especially policies that were bound to be as controversial as these are.

And if you're talking about an internal investigation of sorts, well, nothing this administration has done thus far gives me any real confidence in their ability to police or investigate themselves.

I would argue that the administration has had plenty of time to have a complete assessment--they should have done that while formulating the policies in the first place, especially policies that were bound to be as controversial as these are.

And if you're talking about an internal investigation of sorts, well, nothing this administration has done thus far gives me any real confidence in their ability to police or investigate themselves.

Implementation of policy would appear to be just as much, if not more the issue, in this case and would require more time in figuring out how the situations occurred. Determining "what broke" often takes groups and organizations an appreciable amount of time.
The bigger the organization, the more time it takes ... the U.S. Government is the epitome of BIG, so I would argue that they really haven't had as much time as necessary.
Unfortunately, these and other recent hearings take away resources that would have otherwise been used to address the issues in a more timely and effective manner. In addition, the real cause and effects can get clouded and result in a lot of phantom chasing.

DP

Who are these people? And how the hell did they wind up in control of the country?

Josh Marshall (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_06_06.php#003046) dissects this WSJ article now available here (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/06/07/0988582) that deals with the Abu Ghraib scandal and the idea that--and I quote--authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

To paraphrase Jon Stewart, "Wha?" (Imagine me rubbing my eyes in disbelief right here--it's about what's happened.) Authority to set aside laws is inherent in the president? Let's make sure we fully understand what's being argued here--that the president has the power to set aside any law he or she doesn't like and there's nothing that any of the other branches of the government can do about it.

To hell with the 2000 election--this is a Constitutional crisis. If these people are actually going to argue this and get away with it, then the system of checks and balances that has served us well for the last 200+ years is gone. Kaput. Dead as the proverbial doornail.

I've always been loathe to use the word treason--it has a very specific definition in the Constitution and it's overused by loudmouthed Manchurian Candidate wannabes (Ann Coulter, Tom DeLay--make your own list), but I'm ready now. This is the kind of action that--especially in conjunction with the arguments put forth in the Padilla case--borders on treason. It's an attempt to overthrow the current system of government and replace it with a dictatorship--even constitutional monarchs have less power than the Bush administration is claiming here.

So why am I ready to call it treason? Simply put--if the Bush administration is arguing that the executive branch is beyond question or control and is above the law (which is exactly what Nixon argued), then they are seeking to usurp the power granted to the Congress, to the courts, to the states and to we the people in the Constitution.

This is beyond partisanship. I respect a number of members of the Republican party--I've even voted for them in the past and would not hesitate to do so again if I thought they were the best candidates for the position. These people in power have betrayed the principles that the Republican party has stood for since the 1850s. Cast them out. Denounce them. Take a stand.

I'll tell you how important this is to me. Even though it would hurt John Kerry's chances in November, I would rather see someone like John McCain challenge George Bush for the nomination at the convention if it meant that the Republican party could get its soul back.
After reading this amazing story, I am not at all surprised. It is however shocking that most people who support the Bush Regime don't see the impending consequences of such actions.

Just time to recognize that Bush is now (in my honest opinion), a.......

??DICTATOR??

After reading this amazing story, I am not at all surprised. It is however shocking that most people who support the Bush Regime don't see the impending consequences of such actions.

Just time to recognize that Bush is now (in my honest opinion), a.......

??DICTATOR??

Less a dictator and more of a "King" or monarch, if you ask me (which I know no one did, but I'm gonna weigh in anyway). Dictators realize that their power base is held by force of their actions. The Bush administration believes in a "divine mandate" for their actions, which is a more traditional quality of a monarchy than a dictatorship.

And, as we all know, the US was founded to prevent this exact kind of thing.

How far we have fallen.

DP

Sure, I'll bite. COMMIE!

Sure, I'll bite. COMMIE!Thanks--I feel the love. :lol:

Sure, I'll bite. COMMIE!Thanks--I feel the love. :lol:

aww, my post calling you a commie didn't make it through before. and i had evidence and everything. you made it too easy, what with linking to an anarchist website in your first post.

and btw, here's a little something i made.

http://67.18.37.15/330/185/upload/p1734438.jpg

Is infoshop anarchist? I just followed a link there from another site--Marshall's I think. That's funny.

Here's a toon that might be funny if it weren't so serious.
http://a799.g.akamai.net/3/799/388/aeb55d13916482/www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial/tt040609.gif

Is infoshop anarchist? I just followed a link there from another site--Marshall's I think. That's funny.

yeah, it is. but it's a really good site - especially the news pages. plus, if you post comments you sometimes wind up in other news stories. i remember once there was an ap article that i saw on cnn that used a bunch of shit people were saying on there to talk about the anarchist menace or something.