An Elected Dictator
Posted by
Kevin
That is what the GOP thinks the President really is:
The Justice Department sent a legal memorandum to the Pentagon in 2003 asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned al-Qaeda captives because the president’s ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes.
The notion that the President can ignore any law, break any treaty, abandon any restraint as long as he claims he is doing it in the name of national defense is repugnant to the conscience of any decent person and completely at odds with the foundational principles of democracy, liberty and our government. Defending this marks one as the most servile of men, so far gone in fear and hatred and the need for an illusionary father-figure to protect you from the dangers of the world as to render your opinion on how to handle anything more dangerous than a housefly meaningless. Alternately, I suppose you could just be a monster, a person who so revels in the notion of causing others pain that he would throw away three centuries of hard-earned wisdom about the nature of governments and power and freedom to ensure that he could go to bed a night assured that someone was being tortured on his his behalf somewhere.
And save your pixels if you wish to inform me that I am being mean or contemptuous. I am being mean and contemptuous. Contempt is the least of what is owed people who order such practices and people who defend such practices. One of the clearest lessons of history is that unchecked, unsupervised, unaccountable power is the death of individual liberty and personal freedom. Our Revolution was fought over the exercise of just such unchecked powers and our constitution was specifically designed to prevent anyone from accruing unchecked powers under any circumstances. But the Bush Administration and its disgusting little toadies like John Yoo are perfectly content to throw away all of that accumulated wisdom and the modern conservative movement is perfectly willing to defend them. Why, Dear God, am I supposed to treat this frontal assault on the core principles of democracy with respect?
These people have declared war on the very underpinnings of freedom and democracy. They have advocated a legal regime that would have made George III and Pinochet nod their heads in approval. They argue that a President can do anything he wants to anyone one he wants anywhere in the world he wants as long as he says the magic words “national security” first. They want to elevate the President to a kind of elected dictator and give him powers that would make a 17th century European Monarch giggle with glee. When I call these people servile, disgusting, and enemies of justice, morality, decency and democracy I am not insulting them. I am describing them.
“The notion that the President can ignore any law, break any treaty, abandon any restraint as long as he claims he is doing it in the name of national defense is repugnant to the conscience of any decent person and completely at odds with the foundational principles of democracy, liberty and our government.”
The notion is in your head. Who has made the above claim to immunity from any law,etc.?
Comment 4/2/2008
Did the excerpted paragraph mean nothing to you?
Comment 4/2/2008
Yes. It meant that Kevin tends toward hyperbole.
Comment 4/2/2008
So, Kevin is engaging in hyperbole by quoting a news article that paraphrases the very first paragraph of an official government document? One of us isn’t understanding “hyperbole“. Do you think the Bush administration really only wants the ability to tickle it’s prisoners during questioning?
Or maybe you think that the memo doesn’t literally mean “unconstrained by law” or that an executive unlimited by legislature isn’t a “tyrant“.
Either way, you’re just plain wrong.
Comment 4/2/2008
So, this is interesting:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340A, paragraph (a)
And paragraph (c):
So, assuming that any of the many reports about torture at Gitmo are true, and Bush agrees with his lawyers that it’s Bush’s direct use of executive power that allows it, Bush is an accomplice to a conspiracy to commit torture. Gee, I wonder if that would constitute a “high crime or misdemeanor”. It might even be worse that getting a blowjob.
Comment 4/2/2008
Oh, I failed to mention: The above law is one of the ones that this memo says can be ignored on the president’s say-so.
Comment 4/2/2008
And be fair to George III. He was insane, at least.
Comment 4/2/2008
Dan M:
I’m trying to figure out how Morris is going to accuse you of lying, or of being a strange person…
Comment 4/2/2008
“One of us isn’t understanding “hyperbole“.”
And you don’t understand “any.”
Comment 4/3/2008
So, lemme see, Morris. You are claiming that because the President didn’t claim authority to violate ANY lay, only the specific, long-standing, heralded one above that reflect the recognition of basic human rights and the most cursory understanding of the notion of criminality, Kevin is engaging in hyperbole when he claims the President feels he should be above the law, correct?
Ok, so maybe the Grand Dragon isn’t really racist - he just felt that the particular black people he happened to have met were worthless niggers. And, maybe your neighbor forced to register by Megan’s Law isn’t really a pedophile, and in fact, just found that one specific 7 year old girl incredibly attractive and uncharacteristically mature…
Of course, this is also just an isolated incident. There’s no other evidence in the historical record that supports the notion of Bush thinking the law doesn’t apply to him…
Comment 4/3/2008
“Kevin is engaging in hyperbole when he claims the President feels he should be above the law, correct?”
No, he engages in hyperbole when he says, “…that the President can ignore any law, break any treaty, abandon any restraint as long as he claims he is doing it in the name of national defense…”
The president has taken no such position.
Comment 4/3/2008
Okay, Morris, if Bush’s lawyers claimed that there were only a small class of laws that Bush would ignore in order to
killprotect people, maybe Kevin’d be using hyperbole.Pity for you that that’s not what he said.
Let me repeat that: Yoo thinks that anyone working under executive order can violate any statute that doesn’t already explicitly say that the President can’t violate it. He then goes on to list as one such violable law, the one ordering military personell to not torture. Tell me, exactly, what class of laws does Yoo not include in those that Bush can ignore?
Comment 4/3/2008
Morris, I get it, you like the way Bush runs things. Fine. Could you at least have the integrity to realize that he does so in violation of Constitutional principles dating back to the Magna Carta?
Comment 4/3/2008
“Could you at least have the integrity to realize that he does so in violation of Constitutional principles dating back to the Magna Carta?”
I can’t relize something that is not true. It is your integrity that is lacking.
Comment 4/3/2008
Morris, put up or shut up. What class of laws does Yoo exclude from violation?
Comment 4/3/2008
“What class of laws does Yoo exclude from violation?”
It’s an insane question. I can’t shut up about something I’ve not said. I don’t speak for Yoo. Why do you think I do? You are the one who makes the claim that President Bush says he can violate “any” law that he wants to. The burden of proof is on you and you haven’t met it.
BTW, I’ll shut up when I’m good and ready. Who do you think you are?
Comment 4/3/2008
Dan M, you must by now realize that Morris does not engage in debate. He makes (typically) one sentence pronouncements, repeats them a couple times, then moves on to generalizations and name calling. The pattern is repeated in virtually every thread he enters.
Comment 4/3/2008
“Dan M, you must by now realize that Morris does not engage in debate.”
What is there to debate? Bush has never claimed he should be allowed to violate any law. Hasn’t happened. No debate necessary.
“moves on to generalizations and name calling.”
All dumb idiots say I make generalizations and call names.
Comment 4/3/2008
Bush has never claimed he should be allowed to violate any law. Hasn’t happened. No debate necessary.
You’re right. His legal advisers claimed that, but of course, that’s no reflection on him.
All dumb idiots say I make generalizations and call names.
You know, that was almost funny.
But you need to step away from the computer now and leave the basement — your Mom is calling down that dinner is ready.
Comment 4/3/2008
Step 1. Kevin quote’s Bush’s lawyer. The lawyer claims that Bush can ignore any statute that doesn’t directly pertain to the Commander in Chief. The lawyer also claims that Bush can ignore at least three laws that do pertain to the Commander in Chief.
Step 2. Kevin concludes that the lawyer does not consider any significant class of statutes to be enforceable against Bush. It is known that Bush values the work of this lawyer. Kevin concludes that Bush supports the idea that he can ignore any law.
Step 3. Fred/Morris calls Kevin’s conclusion hyperbole. This would mean that Kevin’s claim is a gross overstatement of the facts. Since the entirety of something cannot be a gross enlargement uppon the vast majority of the same thing, this must mean that Fred thinks that the lawyer only considers a small fraction of laws to be violable by Bush.
Step 4. I asked for any significant class of laws that Bush is bound by.
Step 5. Fred refuses to answer on the grounds that he made the claim in Step (3), but didn’t mean for the necessary conclusion to be drawn.
Fred, either you’re lying, or you’re too stupid to participate in society. On the basis of other things you’ve said, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that your ability to engage in discourse is poorer than that of some cats that I’ve met.
Comment 4/4/2008
Morris: “Bush has never claimed he should be allowed to violate any law.”
tg: “You’re right. His legal advisers claimed that,…”
No, they have not. They have claimed that his actions have not violated the law, not that he should be allowed to violate the law.
Comment 4/4/2008
OK, so what you’re arguing then, is that Bush’s lawyers aren’t saying that Bush can break the law — they’re saying that the law doesn’t apply to him in the first place.
From a practical perspective, however, how is that any different? At the end of the day, they’re still saying that the president is above the law. More importantly, they’re saying that anyone who acts at the direction of the president is above the law.
Comment 4/4/2008
” At the end of the day, they’re still saying that the president is above the law. More importantly, they’re saying that anyone who acts at the direction of the president is above the law.”
You do seem to have trouble with the English language.
Here is an illustration that you may (probably not) understand. If a policeman exceeds the speed limit in the pursuit of a criminal, is the policeman violating the law or is he above the law? Neither.
You know good and well that if you lefty loons had the law on your side and Bush was violating the law your lackeys in Congress would begin impeachment proceedings in a heartbeat.
Comment 4/4/2008
Setting aside the fact that you just compared torture to breaking the speed limit, the law specifically stipulates under what circumstances an officer may exceed the speed limit in the course of his or her duties. So as soon as you can point to the law that explicitly states that the president need not adhere to it, and under what circumstances, you’ll have a point.
Comment 4/5/2008