I know I've been bemoaning the fact that, for years now, no one in this country seems to be paying attention, nor actively care, what Bush is doing to this country as President (which is, of course, hyperbole). We're all too busy arguing about the war and bashing each other for obviously lacking in patriotism (funny how both sides of THAT argument make the same claims), or lapses in moral fiber, or whatever. But I'm done wondering about that one for now.
Now it's "Is anyone in Congress paying attention?"
Bush Defies Hundreds of Laws
According to this Boston Globe story, he's got a very simple solution to any conflicts with Congress. He'll just ignore any law he disagrees with, 'cause he's the President.
I used to mock him for his apparent stupidity. Then I stopped, since I realized that was a mask for more insidious things. Not that I think he's a very bright man… the most he'll likely get from me is "cunning." But he does have some very smart—in a viscious, underhanded sort of way—advisers, and they all are in the midst of what has to be the greatest Presidential power play in recent history.
I just have to wonder if anyone in Congress is paying ANY fucking attention at all. Of if they're all just content to sit on their asses and listen to what their party leadership is telling them. In the case of the Republicans, presumably that's "if you want to keep the party's support next election, you'll toe the line." God only knows what the hell the Democrat leadership (and I use the term loosely) is saying. Whatever it is, it apparently amounts to "don't do anything that might be construed as leadership. We don't want to get involved."
What I want to know is whether anyone is going to wake up while we still have a functioning democracy? Or will GW really manage to make himself the de facto King of the United States while Congress debates how best to piss off the immigrant population and the importance of outlawing videogames to "keep the children safe."
Suffice it to say, they all disgust me.
Now it's "Is anyone in Congress paying attention?"
Bush Defies Hundreds of Laws
According to this Boston Globe story, he's got a very simple solution to any conflicts with Congress. He'll just ignore any law he disagrees with, 'cause he's the President.
I used to mock him for his apparent stupidity. Then I stopped, since I realized that was a mask for more insidious things. Not that I think he's a very bright man… the most he'll likely get from me is "cunning." But he does have some very smart—in a viscious, underhanded sort of way—advisers, and they all are in the midst of what has to be the greatest Presidential power play in recent history.
I just have to wonder if anyone in Congress is paying ANY fucking attention at all. Of if they're all just content to sit on their asses and listen to what their party leadership is telling them. In the case of the Republicans, presumably that's "if you want to keep the party's support next election, you'll toe the line." God only knows what the hell the Democrat leadership (and I use the term loosely) is saying. Whatever it is, it apparently amounts to "don't do anything that might be construed as leadership. We don't want to get involved."
What I want to know is whether anyone is going to wake up while we still have a functioning democracy? Or will GW really manage to make himself the de facto King of the United States while Congress debates how best to piss off the immigrant population and the importance of outlawing videogames to "keep the children safe."
Suffice it to say, they all disgust me.
Comments
Second, I am baffled how a story like this one gets on the NEWS page of a major publication instead of the OPINION page. There is a lot of opinion in that piece.
Lastly...I don't want to get into a huge debate over what Bush does or has done...suffice it to say, I agree that his office clearly wants to, and does, push the envelope of Presidential power. Is it because they are power mongers? Is it because they have no respect for politicians? Or, is it because they don't want to deal with bullshit while fighting a war? Are there real reasons or just conspiracy theories? I don't know, and I don't care because I distrust all politicians. But, mostly because I'm not as afraid or worried about Bush's transgressions as you or the Boston Globe are.
I will say this: there is not a LAW forbidding wiretapping. There is a STATUTE. It's a big fucking difference, and it is part of the article's problem with fact vs. opinion. Now, you want to debate the authority of the statute passed by Congress vs. the power of the Executive branch? That could make a good debate. But, Bush did not break or ignore a LAW in that case.
I mock, of course. Once again, you choose to miss the point by focusing on a distracting detail. (Is that a conservative debate technique, I wonder? You're not the only person I know to use it, but I notice that it's usually the conservative end of the argument that takes that tactic.) But, before I get back to my point, allow me to quote Webster's — statute: a law enacted by the legislative branch of a government. Yep, sounds like a huge difference to me.
So, back to the point of my post. Congress should be paying attention because, if, as the Boston Globe suggests (and, as I may point out, Cheney pretty much confirms, Bush and co. are attempting to increase the power of the President, than they are doing it at the expense of Congress' power and authority. And I would think that any member of Congress would be concerned about that, even above and beyond what gets them reelected or more money.
And did you honestly just use the President's "I'm just trying to fight a war here" defense? When the hell did you take the blue pill? Since I'm quoting, how about this one…
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
If Bush can't wage war while preserving the Constitution, that's his failure. And our problem.
And before you get started on that… the statute that he's ignoring with his illegal wiretaps calls for oversight and authorization of those wiretaps. He states that the program he's using is reviewed every 45 days. Adding Congressional oversight to this program does NOTHING to alleviate it's effectiveness or usefulness… it simply adds one of the checks and balances built into the Constitution that he's sworn to protect and defend. You want to debate the power of the Executive vs. the Legislative branch, then that's probably where it should start.
Oh, I'm not using it. Just pointing out that they use it. Like I said, I am not as worried about you, so I could care less what excuses or conspiracy theories abound. I have to believe that if Bush were breaking a law and it could be proved as conclusively as that writer seems to think, the Dems would jump on it. I call that the 'rule of hatred'. The Dems hate the Republicans...do YOU think they'd let something slip by?
That's the definition of a statute alright. You know what I don't like about it? It IS essentially a law...that cannot be checked or balanced by the supreme court the same as a law, and that does not need popular support to stay on the books! It's a sidestep law.
Unfortunately, the sidestep law/statute that restrains the executive branch's use of wiretapping is, in my not so humble opinion (had to throw that in), un-constitutional. Jimmy Carter SIGNED it, and I would argue he not only did not have the right to agree to it, but that signing it is un-constitutional. Why? Because it is a reduction of executive power (as outlined in the Constitution) by the legislative branch. The ONLY way they are supposed to be allowed to do such a thing is with an amendment to the Constitution. So, a statute does not cut it.
And, I think the Dems know this. Why do you think they've pretty much dropped the whole issue?
Q
As for the Dems reluctance to do anything about it, that could just as easily be a combination of the bunker mentality that has them afraid to take any stand that could be seen as "unsupportive" to the war effort, the occasional sincere belief that warrantless wiretaps are a legitimate tool in said war effort, and the certainty that any attempt to actually act against Bush in Congress would get smacked down by the Republican majority in both houses.
And your usage of the "just trying to fight a war" certainly implies that you're using it in the same sense they do. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
But here's the real question for me. You say you don't trust politicians. Okay. The Bush White House has authorized warrantless wiretaps on American citizens. You argue that it's unconstitutional, but it's still a law that the President has chosen to exempt his administration from. He's done the same with any law (statute? whatever) dealing with torture, so we've got at least tacit approval of torture. When asked about secret renditions, our Secretary of State wouldn't deny the process, so apparently we're also kidnapping and transporting people for purposes of interrogation, presumably including the possibility of torture. Then there's the whole "enemy combatant" thing, where our Attorney General authorized the arrest and imprisonment of an American citizen, without issuing any charges beyond labeling him an enemy combatant. They locked him away in Guantanamo, without charges or access to counsel and when, 2 years later, the courts ruled against the administration on this one, the Bush lawyers basically responded "we disagree and will take it under advisement." (And no, I don't give a rat's ass about the loser they arrested. But I am damn bothered by the precedent they set.)
And please, let's not forget that these are the same thugs that burned an undercover CIA operative over a political spat. I don't care what you say, that last one's indefensible. (And, depending on how you want to split those hairs, borders on treason.)
You say your not worried by Bush's transgressions, which seems to imply some level of trust (or complacency?). We've got secret wiretaps, torture and the unlawful imprisoning of US citizens. These are the actions of a police state. So I've got to wonder how the hell you continue to trust these people and what do they have to do for you to get worried?
I do not argue that it's unconstitutional. Under Article 11, I think what he is doing is perfectly constitutional. The statute that was passed by Congress and Carter insisting the President seek a warrant is unconstitutional because Congress is not allowed (by the Constitution) to restrict the powers of the executive branch without an amendment to the Constitution. However, I would agree that it shouldn't be a big deal for Bush to get a warrant 72 hours after the fact (something the statute allows).
I do not approve of the use of torture. He wiggles his way around that legality in an uncomfortable manner, and I oppose water-boarding.
I don't consider taking someone out of the Iraqi war zones and into a prison in Poland 'kidnapping'. I also don't believe any terrorist operating in that zone is covered by any Geneva conventions (those conventions are for soldiers in uniform, not terrorists). So, I have no problem with sticking some terrorist in a hole in Poland and questioning him. I just don't think they should be tortured because America shouldn't use torture. Though, I support tough interrogation and conditions.
I am bothered by any citizens in Guantanamo. Unfortunately, there is no proof that any people still in Guantanamo ARE citizens. In my opinion and 'enemy combatant' cannot be a citizen of the U.S. Admittedly, the administration may be pushing it here if not breaking it outright. However, I'm not totally sure anymore WHO is in there. Are you? Do you know for a fact that there is a U.S. citizen being held in Guantanamo? Show me the article and I'll join you in abhorring the precedent.
Burning Valerie Plame is TOTALLY dirty politics, and they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Unfortunately, I think they will skate around the legality. However, I don't think it sets a bad precedent, because I think everyone has been doing it for some time. The precedent was set long ago. I also hardly think it comes near anything resembling treason.
Your last question is a fair one. I'd say I'm complacent. My lack of trust for all politicians makes me worried about WASHINGTON D.C....Bush is just renting the space. I don't fear him, in particular, because his power is now limited by his low numbers and his soon to be Dem controlled House.
I have no problem with wiretapping of calls being made between the U.S. and any fascistic war zone. I think it is well within the war powers of the executive branch, and I'm comforted they are doing it.
I don't like torture at all, and I think they have pushed the envelope all too far.
The only thing I trust is the power of the American people. And, if we really did start to see a police state form, I think the backlash would be quick and powerful and decisive.
As for Guantanamo, there was one case that made a very big splash shortly after 9/11. Some petty thug was arrested getting off a plane from the mid-east and taken to Guantanamo. Our AG at the time (I've blocked HIS name, but he was the one I was sure was cribbing from 1984) made a big deal about announcing that we had arrested the man as an enemy combatant, that he'd come straight from an Al Queda training facility with plans for a dirty bomb. AG was in Russia at the time, and had a special press conference to announce the arrest. I remember later that day that a spokesman for the FBI downplayed the guys importance, but I only heard that report once, then it disappeared.
I didn't hear anything again for a couple of years, then his story resurfaced as the guys's family had apparently lawyered up and was taking the governement to court over his treatment, as he'd been denied representation. Eventually (I'm not sure if it was a District Court or had gone higher) but the court ruled against the government in this and that "we'll disagree" comment was the last I remember hearing. Whether the guy is still there or not, I don't know. (And no, I can't remember his name now, damnit. I'll have to check at home and see if I've still got the article.)
Gotta run now, but as usual, I think after beating this dead horse for the past week, we're not that far apart. Sometimes I wish I could go for complacent more often.
Interestingly enough, a report came out today about the NSA gathering information. I'm sure certain newspapers will add 'illegaly' to the end of that statement, though legality is yet to be determined.
The story made me think of our mini-debate here, and why I distrust both politicians AND the media. And, why one of the things I distrust about them both is exactly why I don't worry about them getting away with anything terribly important.
Let's face it, we aren't even HAVING this debate in 1945. Why? Because the political parties worked together even when they disagreed, and because the media was not out to get them. Today, the parties despise each other and look for any possible excuse to flay each other publicly, and the media is always after the next Watergate to make them famous - so they are always willing accomplices.
This is all very abhorrent to me...but, it's also a good thing! If not for this attitude, we don't know about the torture going on. I just wish the media and parties were smarter about when to drop it.
The NSA story seems silly - the NSA apparently gathers calling data from phone companies to look for patterns. They approach 6 major companies like AT&T, etc. for the data. 5 give them the info, but QWest declines - claiming they think the project is illegal. The NSA doesn't force the point, but the media gets a hold of it and now we have a new "government illegally infringing on our privacy" story.
I kind of feel the same way about Bush's nominee for the CIA. I'm glad to hear he might get grilled in his nomination hearings, and I'm glad there's concern over his appropriateness for the position. Kind of like separation of Church & State, I think separation of military and domestic intelligence is a good thing. But in this case, hell, this is the guy that's been heading up NSA and pushing these programs we've been talking about (if I've skimmed the news on this correctly). At least putting him in charge of the CIA gets him out of domestic spying (ostensibly—who knows what the CIA's really up to these days).
Go to Truthout and Google the name Padilla and you'll get a lot of links (yes, I know it may gall you to use such a leftist site, but the links don't go away as they do on regular news sites).
Here's an update from late last year:
Bush Administration Wins Appeal in Jose Padilla Case
(For what it's worth, the "go to original" link for this story is not dead yet, so you can find the article at Bloomberg as well.)
I was incorrect on the location, but the troubling action is still the same. An American citizen, locked up indefinitely without charges. All the President has to do is declare him an enemy combatant and throw away the key. This, I find disturbing.