President As King, Again
Jun 22
Can we stop pretending that Bush actually believes in liberal democracy?
the court—even if it were to find unlawfulness upon in camera, ex parte review—could not then proceed to adjudicate the very question of awarding damages because to do so would confirm Plaintiffs’ allegations. (emphasis added)
Essentially the Government is saying that, even if the Judiciary found the wholesale surveillance program was illegal after reviewing secret evidence in chambers, the Court nevertheless would be powerless to proceed, because the Executive has asserted that the Program, which has been widely reported in every major news outlet, is nevertheless still such a secret that the Judiciary (a co-equal branch under the Constitution) cannot acknowledge its existence by ruling against it. In short, the Government asserts that AT&T and the Executive can break the laws crafted by Congress, and there is nothing the Judiciary can do about it.
Kings, even ones we elect, are a bad idea. Without accountability, without having to explain themselves to people outside of their circle, leaders and organizations get stupid. They lose touch with reality, forget the value of empiricism, and excuse behavior in themselves that they would justifiably castigate others for. Kings, no matter what their intentions, are always in danger of believing too much in themselves. A spoiled, pampered, arrogant, allergic-to-responsibility popinjay like Bush is almost guaranteed to fail spectacularly without someone looking over his shoulder. A President like Bush is why our Founders set up a republic with three branches equal in power and responsibility, but the principle is the same whether we have a man manifestly unfit for the office or a Lincoln. Accountability is the first defender of liberty and safety.
The real danger is that Bush will get away with it, and that his successors will get away with also. Authoritarianism can be a tempting vice, and one hard to break once it is indulged in. If these arguments are allowed to take hold, if the radical notion that an open ended, undeclared “war” on a nebulous enemy with indefinable victory conditions represents a condition that allows the shredding of the Constitution, then other Presidents will use them to avoid accountability. When that comes to pass, the fundamental nature of our Republic will change from one of liberty to one of authoritarianism. And I don’t know how we would ever change it back.
#1 by Annoying Old Guy at June 22nd, 2006
| Quote
I agree that this is troubling, but I think you ought to lay off the hysteria sauce, it detracts from your point. We recovered from the suspension of habeus corpus and mass internments, it seems possible we will recover from this as well. What might be an effective effort would be to discuss the war in serious terms and work for victory. One of the major reasons Bush does get away with this kind of thing is that the alternative appears to the citizenry to deny the war and the enemies who are fighting it against us.
#2 by Fred at June 22nd, 2006
| Quote
Kevin, how many different can you say the same old stuff? It didn’t make any more sense in your other 100 posts on the same subject.
#3 by Ted at June 22nd, 2006
| Quote
LOL. Good one Fred. Advice from the expert.
AOG, good comment. A valid point in my opinion.
#4 by tgirsch at June 23rd, 2006
| Quote
AOG:
I might agree that there’s a message problem here, but I simply refuse to believe that we can’t win this war without abandoning the principles we’re supposed to hold dear. If we’re becoming more like our enemies in order to defeat them, that’s not victory, in my book.
Accountability and rule of law aren’t some niceties to be abandoned in war time. They’re more important in war time than at any other time.
I just hope that you’re right, insofar as years down the road, people will view the current disregard for rule of law in the same way we (except Malkin) now view things like the internment.
#5 by Annoying Old Guy at June 23rd, 2006
| Quote
Unfortunately, reality doesn’t always conform to one’s preferred beliefs. I am not aware of any war fought by the USA where the USA didn’t engage in things far worse than what Bush has done. While it would be nice if your claim were true, there is precious little evidence for it and much evidence against it.
To see Iraq the way I see it, try reading up on the Philippine-American War. Compare that to the action in Iraq and then tell me how un-American it is.
#6 by Kevin at June 23rd, 2006
| Quote
AOG
Man, your history is odd. Name for me anything that the Sedition laws of WWI or the internment of WWII did to win the war? The only thing that migh come close are some of Lincoln’s actions, but if you are seriously going to suggest that terrorists represent a threat of that magnitude, then you will throw away what little credibility that you have.
As far as recovering — really? And what are some of the justifications that Bush uses to claim legality for his actions? Internment, Linoln, etc. And as far as I know, no President claimed these powers agaisnt US citizens without a declaration of war and a defined, public benchmark for victory. Bush is claimgn these powers not becasue of a temporary emergency, but by claiming they are pat and parcel of the everyday powers of the President. THAT is a precedent unlike any other in US history.
#7 by Annoying Old Guy at June 24th, 2006
| Quote
Kevin;
I am not claiming that those things did anything to help win the war. I am saying that such things were done in every war, so it’s hardly a radical departure to have that happen again. I am not objecting to you all being concerned, but your treatment of the situation as if it is unprecedented or unexpected.
For instance, Tgirsch expects the USA to fight this war without resorting to such dubious mechanisms. But why? It’s never happened before. I think it’s fine to work towards that result, but to expect it? That’s what is odd here, not my history.
As for my credibility, that’s just ad hominem. (as an aside, could you explain what exactly the threat to the USA was in WWI? I missed that in my odd history lessons).
As for recovery, just look at what’s being argued now, compared to what was done in previous wars. We’re arguing about looking at phone billing records. Hoover’s FBI would laugh at the thought of that being arguable.
Parting shot: consider the recent story by the NY Times on monitoring of international monetary transfers. The NY Times itself believe this to be both legal and effective, yet willfully destroyed the effort by publishing. Why, then, should the average citizen not decide that his choices are dodgy power grabs by the President vs. unilateral disarmament? And if that is the choice, which do you think the citizen will pick?
P.S. You might want to look up the states of emergency declared during the Nixon and Carter Presidencies, which serve as better precedents for Bush than the Civil War or WWII. As far as I know, those declarations were never rescinded and are still in effect. Or you could try the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 for a precedent.
#8 by Bill at June 24th, 2006
| Quote
What is democracy? It is best explained as minority rights. The smallest minority is the individual so democracy is individual rights. But there is another side that is difficult for those thinking kings to understand.
In the democracy, citizen is the highest office. Citizens outrank all other office holders. But the citizen must exercise his office wisely else he abdicates it to a king. How kings get into office is beside the point. It’s saying president is a higher office than citizen that allows a president to be king.
Presidents are servants of the people and that’s as far as democracy allows that servant’s office to go. When presidents go beyond that imaginary boundary, start decreeing rather than going to the representatives of the people for permission first they become kings. Has king George done that?
Republicans are still back pre revolution. GOP presidents just don’t get it. They are forever thinking of themselves as kings and not servants. Probably has something to do with money based priviledged upbringing, a better class of people in a society that says the boss is the citizen, everyone. They love democracy so much they can’t wait to take it over and turn it back to kingdom.
Conservative means keep as is and if it’s changed then change it back. Our country began as a kingdom, king George in fact. The GOP wants it to be a kingdom and they got George to represent their compasionate conservative position.
A compasionate conservative feels sorry for po folks, feels for them but can’t find them. Well, except when it’s tax time.
I wasn’t conservative before not being conservative was cool and above all else Democratic. The time has come to fire the king,, it’s George again.
http://www.hoax-buster.org There’s a surprise coming for red-hot compasionate conservatives funnelling billions of tax dollare to churches so Pat Robertson, God will endorse them. It’s already here?
#9 by Fred at June 24th, 2006
| Quote
Bill Said:
What is democracy? It is best explained as minority rights. The smallest minority is the individual so democracy is individual rights. But there is another side that is difficult for those thinking kings to understand.
Fred: Good to hear that you support individual rights. I hope this means you don’t support Affirmative Action (a.k.a Affirmative Discrimination).
#10 by Bill at June 24th, 2006
| Quote
If AA denys individual rights then it’s not Democratic. Does it gain rights for some that are otherwise denied? Make your case. It’s not my case in either direction. We have elected officials, servants of the people who make those decisions. If they decide wrong then fire them. One strike and you’rrrrrrrrrre out! Adding “dude” to the end of that is allowed, warranted even.
#11 by Fred at June 24th, 2006
| Quote
Affirmative Discrimination classifies people as part of a group according to the color of their skin. Special rights are then given based on belonging to that group. There is no greater violation of individual rights than Affirmative Discrimination programs.
#12 by Bill at June 24th, 2006
| Quote
One person’s right to swing his fist ends where his neighbor’s nose begins. I didn’t say there would neither be scoundrels who either think they have all the rights while others have none or who think might makes right. If that’s the case we don’t even need a government. The main purpose of even having a government in the Democracy is to stop people from hurting each other. Does Affirmative Action spring from one group hurting another? Does it stop it? Does it help more than it hurts? Who does it hurt? How does it hurt you?
#13 by Kevin at June 24th, 2006
| Quote
AOG
You are being disnegenous. I gave you two reasons for thinking that this is different and much worse, and you ignored both. You also say that we are arguing about looking at phone records. No, actually, we are arguing about the President claiming for himself the power to hold people without trial or access to lawyers or anyone on the outside forever; we are arguing about the President claiming that he has the right to ignore any law he and he alone deems an impediment to his notion of what constitutes protectign national defense. Your attmept to minimize that is disengenous at best.
And as for this:
“yet willfully destroyed the effort by publishing. ”
My, God, man that’s an idiotic statement. The article did not destory the effectivness of a damn thing, unless you really are dumb enough to believe that the people who pulled off 9/11 and Blai and London and Madrid are so stupid that it never occured to them that their financial records would be searched for and monitored. Of course, any terorrist who believed that would be so stupid that I would have to question wether or not their brain was large enough to contain enough brain cells to handle complex tasks — like breathing.
The only thing the article did was embarees the Administration and its apologists becasue it showed, once again, that the Bush Amdinistraiton is spying on just about everyone without reasonable judicial oversight. Ebaressing Bush is hardly endareing the country.
#14 by Fred at June 24th, 2006
| Quote
Bill Says:
June 24th, 2006
Does Affirmative Action spring from one group hurting another? Does it stop it? Does it help more than it hurts? Who does it hurt? How does it hurt you?
Fred: You are wavering. You now want to put people in groups based on skin color. What happened to individual rights? Am I now to be put into a group with slaveholders because their skin was white and so is mine? Some of my ancestor came after the War Between the States. Does that mean I am only partly in a group? Affirmative Discrimination is a racist attempt to get special treatment based on skin color. There’s no other way to put it.
#15 by Annoying Old Guy at June 24th, 2006
| Quote
Really? I looked at the original link and post, and it was about the phone record surveillance program. I read your other comments and saw no mention of any other actions. Obviously I have missed it, could you point it out to me?
As for this,
My understanding is that the justifications claimed stem primarily from legislation passed by Congress, essentially the same document that approved the invasion of Iraq (which was a declaration of war). You may not agree with that, but it is what the Bush Administration thinks and the basis of their claims for these kind of powers.
As for a clear condition of victory, we go right back to my original point. Let’s assume that Bush has been terribly derelict in specifying victory conditions against our current enemies (I think we agree that ‘war on terror’ is a ludicrious description of the current conflict). Perhaps you could do a post on what you think such conditions should be and so create a basis for a non-empty oppositionism.
My condition? The unconditional surrender and destruction of caliphascism, the ideology that is our current enemy.
As for the money transfer monitoring, three points:
1. We will see how long SWIFT continues to cooperate in the face of this publicity, being already nervous about the operation.
2. The NY Times disagrees with your assessment on the effectiveness of the program. Are you saying that the NY Times is simultaneously “embarrassing the Administration” and shilling for it?
3. The NY Times also reports that there was quite a bit of oversight on the program. See (2).
#16 by Kevin at June 24th, 2006
| Quote
AOG
“Really? I looked at the original link and post, and it was about the phone record surveillance program. I read your other comments and saw no mention of any other actions. Obviously I have missed it, could you point it out to me?”
I am sorry: I hadn’t realized that you were on a dessert island for the last six years and thus unable to understand the well known context in whihc this one particulalr program takes place.
“My understanding is that the justifications claimed stem primarily from legislation passed by Congress, essentially the same document that approved the invasion of Iraq (which was a declaration of war). You may not agree with that, but it is what the Bush Administration thinks and the basis of their claims for these kind of powers.”
No. The Bush Amdin claims that Article 2 gives them the power to do as they see fit with regard to matters of national security, at least. Reading some of the stuff they produce it sounds as if they want that notion to apply everywhere, and people in their administration have made the argument that the Executive cannot be overseen by the other branches outside of their duties, but I am not sure if anyone has gone on record with that broad of an argument in their official duties.
“Perhaps you could do a post on what you think such conditions should be and so create a basis for a non-empty oppositionism.”
I am not the one claiming extraordinary powers for the duration of the conflict and not defing the end point of the conflict. I think Bush’s moves are not required for success and in fact hinder our efforts so I feel no compulsion to give him an out. The point was merely to highlight the radical nature of his moves — no President has ever claimed the right to go as far for an unkowable amount of time.
“1. We will see how long SWIFT continues to cooperate in the face of this publicity, being already nervous about the operation.
2. The NY Times disagrees with your assessment on the effectiveness of the program. Are you saying that the NY Times is simultaneously “embarrassing the Administration” and shilling for it?
3. The NY Times also reports that there was quite a bit of oversight on the program. See (2).”
I am sorry, but SWIFT is going to stop obeying what appear to be legal warrants becasue they think exposure makes them look bad? And note that SWIFT had no problem with real security issues — they were only concerned about the ridiculously broad scope of the program and were fine with it once they had forced safeguards into the procedures.
The NYT article was ambivalent about the effectivness of the program and the LAT was even more so. Both articles made clear, however, that the Bush Admini was sucking up every piece of information it could out of those databases and was doing it with administrative letters which are secret and not subject to judicial review.
And, by the ay, the link is about the case in the illegal wiretapping, not the bank records.
#17 by Annoying Old Guy at June 25th, 2006
| Quote
If I grant you your points, then I am left with two choices:
* An overreaching administration that is willing to at least haphazardly fight our enemies
* The opposition who refuses to even define our enemies or what it would mean to defeat them and considers not giving the administration an “out” more important than doing so.
Which do you think I should support?
#18 by Steve Plonk at July 4th, 2006
| Quote
I think we need to investigate all ragheads driving ragtops. Spank ‘em if they’re bad! Especially if they got three women with burkas riding with ‘em. Get it done!