Newshoggers Comments
I'm glad you're pressing this point. Of course the Democratic Party believers will never listen. Most of them probably don't object so much to Bush's assumption of limitless executive power in principle as they do to the particular ways he happens to use it. I suspect they'd be perfectly content to have, say, Hillary Clinton as the "unitary executive". The problem with liberals is that they think everything would be OK if nice people were in charge. And the problem with U.S. liberals is that they think Democrats are uniformly nice people. They're wrong on both counts.
"Will you, if elected, pledge to roll back the Bush vision of total Presidential executive power".
Here's a better question for you: "Will you, if elected, stand in front of the loved ones of those killed by our enemies, and explain why their loved ones died for nothing, while you frittered away opportunities to save them, all the while dressed in your pajamas, whining like a little girl, about how your rights are being violated."?
We're at war.
DHIMMIcRATs are not the only ostriches in the game ... there are plenty of Libertarian butts sticking up in the air.
It doesn't matter to me one bit which party a president belongs to if that president is trying to assume powers that are not rightfully his. If a Democratic president were to attempt to:
1) Eliminate the right of habeus corpus for anyone charged with the crime of "terrorism"
2) Grant himself the unilateral right to designate a citizen an "unlawful combatant" with no rights under the justice system
3) Codify torture as legal when used by the CIA
well, then, I'm going to work damned hard to ensure that said president is thwarted in his attempts and defeated at the polls.
I'm an American, first. Or maybe father and husband first. How about American father and husband?
Anyway, Democrat is somewhere far down the totem pole.
*rolls eyes* yeah Paul...keep taking those meds.
Can we stick to the topic now that this post has been Instalanched 2and a half months after writing?
How many conservatives/Republicans (I know they're two different animals nowadays) would be as happy with Bush's Article II claims if Clinton (Mrs.) was making them next?
Regards, Cernig
Nicely said, Jeff.
Regards, Cernig
I don't really identify with either party, but I sorta hope the Reps will give me a small government and the Dems will protect my civil liberties. But Clinton undid exactly nothing of what Reagan did and Bush is hardly a small gov't guy.
I don't think I agree with your assessment of the way things are but I also don't hink that's important because the question you raise IS important. It seems like the people in power are staying in power by being vague about what they actually stand for. Make these guys state baldly what they're really for and what they intend, whether it's for wars against Islam, hikes in the minimum wage, etc.
I think a lot of Reps are feeling betrayed by the current administration (when did foreign wars become a conservative position anyway?) and I think Dems are well on their way to being betrayed, too. (Again.)
So, yeah, let's call 'em all out, and then throw 'em out when they misrepresent themselves.
They don't have to "dissolve" the masses.
Just open the borders and allow the vote to everyone who comes and swarm the Americans under with numbers.
"if that president is trying to assume powers that are not rightfully his".
This is just Libertarian hysteria. We have rules and regulations that decide what powers belong to an Executive in a time of war, and if you don't like those rules, go live somewhere else.
Given the view of Americans jumping from burning buildings and falling tens of floors to their certain deaths rather than burn to death in a terrorist attack, allowed in part by the kinds of thinking perpetrated by Libertarian and "civil rights" types, such as yourself, I can tell you that given this statement: "I'm going to work damned hard to ensure that said president is thwarted", I don't consider you a loyal opponent, but someone entrenched squarely on the "other side." Welcome to the 5th column, sir.
Again, we're at war. Get your priorities straight, or get out. Go to Canada or France, or someother inconsequential place and wallow in your self-pity. We have a war for humanity to win.
By the way, unlike Lincoln, Bush did not revoke habeas corpus. Had he felt it necessary, I would have supported him. On torture, Bush has consistently refused to sanction it. Personally, I think this is a mistake on his part. The Islamist monsters caught on the battlefield should be tortured. And, unlawful combatant? How is that non-issue working out for you? Have you managed to wipe the spittle from your bottom lip long enough to explain to the relatives of those Americans killed and maimed by these "unlawful combatants" why you've managed to find such emotion in favor of the rights of the monsters who took their relatives lives?
"*rolls eyes*".
Yeah. Now there's an argument. Caught in your pajamas at the keyboard again, trying to convince anyone who makes the mistake of not ignoring you that you have some standing on the human-value totem pole.
Don't look now. That comment about ostriches turned out to be pure projection. Look who has sand in his nostrils.
Paul,
Better - obviously some sleep helped your paranoid delusions of a "war of civilisations".
A couple of basic points.
Yes, the US has laws. None of them explicitly give permission for what Bush has done in grabbing Article II rights.
"The Constitution is actually pretty clear on that score. Article I says "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" -- Article II says the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" -- Article III says "the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in . . . inferior Courts." That arrangement isn't really a side detail or something that shifts based on circumstance. It's pretty fundamental to the whole system. In fact, if you change that formula, it isn't really the American system of government anymore."
Likewise, on your favoring suspension of Habeas Corpus and on torture for "Islamist monsters"...
What about the non-Islamist non-Monsters detained during the war on terror?
90% of all detainees have been released without charge. That is, they were innocent.
And the others are "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". That's absolutely fundemental to liberty and freedom. Take it away and you no longer have either, for anyone.
Maybe it is you, sir, who should move to another nation if you don't like the ideals America was built upon. I can suggest a couple. North Korea, Iran, Pakistan. Although maybe the old Soviet Union would be more to your tastes, as it would be for the neo-Trotskyites calling themselves "neo-conservatives".
Regards, Cernig
Sorry, but all these things were first asserted by FDR during WWII.
This myth of the "Bush Bush vision of total Presidential executive power" is absurd, and incredibly naive. If he had assumed that kind of power, do you really think you'd know about the NSA or SWIFT programs? Do you think the Hamdan case would have been decided against the administration?
You've been sold the BIG LIE, because the Dems and the Press are out of power and they want back in. We've just witnessed the Senate Democrat leadership threaten ABC to change the content of a film that hadn't aired yet. So much for their concern about the Constitution and abuse of power.
If you want to believe this crap, you're free to, but don't try to sell it to the rest of us.
Strange, AST, because in the Hamdan ruling the Supremes seemed to think Bush's Article II powergrab wasn't just a figment.
BTW, no-one invited you to read this post on my blog. No-one twisted your arm to comment. I didn't try to sell you anything. Blame Glenn 
Regards, Cernig
Oh, and AST...if its a BIG LIE then I'm sure you'll be fine with a Dem President taking up where Bush left off on Article II, right?
Same for Paul, who is so busy dripping paranoid fantasies about the Moslems Under The Bed that he can't answer my question above:
How many conservatives/Republicans (I know they're two different animals nowadays) would be as happy with Bush's Article II claims if Clinton (Mrs.) was making them next?
It looks to me like there are just as many partisan Republican ostriches on that question as there are partisan Dem ones on the main post's topic.
The latter group say Bush=Bad so have to "ostrich" when faced with the possibility of their own using Bush's Article II claims as a precedent.
The former say Bush=Good so have to "ostrich" when faced with the possibility of their opposition using Bush's Article II claims as a precedent.
That would be funny if it wasn't scary.
-C
I'm going to try to be polite here since abuse is seldom helpful.
When I first saw your post title on Insty, I thought it was about people denying the reality of a civilization endangering war aka the Liberals. I find its about Libertarian fears of excessive Presidential authority instead.
Was Lincoln wrong to revoke habeas corpus? If he hadn't and the result was the South succeeded in seceeding would you have still counselled the same course?
I do agree that we need clarity, and actions that back up that clarity. So yes, if I thought someone held information relevant to a sarin attack, I could cut their fingers off to get that information. That, btw, is genuine torture, not some silly little thing like playing loud rock and roll music near them. For goodness sakes, my five year old could probably sleep through that just fine. If I want to wake him in the morning, I have to pick him up out of bed.
Anyways, I find Paul's initial question quite fair. In the Gospels, Jesus is questioned a number of times. At least a couple times to my memory, He did not want to answer. So He counterpunched by saying to the effect--I'll answer your question if you answer mine first. And since I regard Jesus as the living embodiment of Truth, Justice and so forth, instead of following the dry arid principles I'm content there.
My strongest point is that Libertarians think themselves in control, they think 90% of people are Libertarians, and just don't realize it. The problem is that that 90% has Libertarian tendencies, and Social Conservative and Liberal tendencies all wound up in the same person, and so while most people are open to considering Libertarian arguements, its only to a degree. Your purist Libertarian stance is probably about 2% of the population, so no, most people are not going to be that upset that Bush (or Hillary) for that matter kept them safe by tossing people with the legal standing of pirates into some foreign brig.
I mean, we could just execute terrorists on the spot, and be perfectly legal. And probably most Americans would shrug and go on with their life. A few like me would cheer. A few liberals would be appalled. I'm not sure what the Libertarians would do.
Commenting by HaloScan
