|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:05 am Post subject: Pushing the Limits Of Wartime Powers |
 |
|
The article is a little long, so I'll just give the Wash Post link, and fit the conclusion in here.
| Quote: |
By law, according to University of Chicago scholar Geoffrey Stone, the differences are fundamental: Americans have constitutional protections that are enforceable in court whether their conversations are domestic or international.
Bush's assertion that eavesdropping takes place only on U.S. calls to overseas phones, Stone said, "is no different, as far as the law is concerned, from saying we only do it on Tuesdays."
Michael J. Woods, who was chief of the FBI's national security law unit when Bush signed the NSA directive, described the ongoing program as "very dangerous." In the immediate aftermath of a devastating attack, he said, the decision was a justifiable emergency response. In 2006, "we ought to be past the time of emergency responses. We ought to have more considered views now. . . . We have time to debate a legal regime and what's appropriate." |
Almost 5 years after the September 11 attacks, the government is spying on American citizens. This is messed up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is all you need to know about Republican "leaderhip." Disgusting. Even more so: Americans are doing virtually nothing about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700992.html
| Quote: |
| Democrats on the committee said the panel issued 1,052 subpoenas to probe alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party between 1997 and 2002, at a cost of more than $35 million. By contrast, the committee under Davis has issued three subpoenas to the Bush administration, two to the Energy Department over nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, and one last week to the Defense Department over Katrina documents. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of the oddest ironies in American politics is that the GOPers are small-government people: don't trust the government, government shouldn't do what people can do for themselves, everyone should be armed to the teeth to protect themselves from the government if it should decide to become dictatorial, etc. But when it comes to the police power, they seem to trust the police (in its various forms) to never abuse their powers.
It was heartening to see the Patriot Act renewal (extension?) fail in the Senate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
...on the other hand, FBI and other feds were severely criticized for not having penetrated the so-called militias and learned of or stopped McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing from unfolding and killing as many as it did in 1995.
This debate moves like a see-saw, and people should acknowledge that they can't have it both ways. Democratic Britain has an MI5, separated from foreign intel. It seems to work for them. Why shouldn't it work for us?
There are, after all, foreign and domestic threats to U.S. national security -- it isn't in the Republicans' imagination.
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Dec 18, 2005 5:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| ...they seem to trust the police (in its various forms) to never abuse their powers. |
But there is a judiciary that seems to function independently of the federal govt and police agencies, isn't there?
The Constitution still functions, particularly the Bill of Rights, and groups like ACLU maintain their indepencence, as does the press. And FBI, DEA, ATF, etc., still must go before Congress for oversight and money, no?
I think we're still a long way from a police state or dictatorship. A combination of things would all have to change. Don't you agree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm all for expanding the number of agents, providing new training if that is needed, and reforming the system so that all the various types of law enforcement/intelligence gathering agencies are in communication and cooperation.
Since we have had Kluxers (and their ilk) running around burning buildings and lynching people for the last century and a half, I don't see modern terrorists as presenting a new threat. I liked having law enforcement having to get search warrants from judges and all the other regulations that were already in place to protect the innocent from police abuse. I think it is perfectly fine for Marian the Librarian to turn over a list of books I've checked out IF the law enforcement agency can convince a judge that there is reasonable cause. I don't like the idea of all these secret prisons spread out all over the world and, apparantly, the government having the right to hold people for years without ever accusing them of a crime. I don't want to be picked up at LAX and whisked off to Gitmo, or god knows where, on the mere suspicion that I may be up to something.
What I don't want is the current situation to be used as an excuse to whittle away at the civil liberties guarantees that took 200 years to develop. I think the things I mentioned in the first paragraph will be enough to take care of the security threats posed by terrorists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I have a hard time believing these special "wartime" powers have not been used for political gain vs administration opponents. It's just that kind of admin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
...on the other hand, FBI and other feds were severely criticized for not having penetrated the so-called militias and learned of or stopped McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing from unfolding and killing as many as it did in 1995.
This debate moves like a see-saw, and people should acknowledge that they can't have it both ways. Democratic Britain has an MI5, separated from foreign intel. It seems to work for them. Why shouldn't it work for us?
There are, after all, foreign and domestic threats to U.S. national security -- it isn't in the Republicans' imagination. |
But what is disturbing is also the way the Administration declared its 'plenary' right to essentially abrogate certain important sections of the Constitution concerning our citizens' rights.
Historically, the Executive is not supposed to make domestic policy; that is the role of the Congress (although certainly the bully pulpit, veto power, accompanied sometimes by a popular Presidential personality provide enough power to decisively influence Congress). It is dangerous to have the imperial aspect of the three branches essentially decide that its powers in wartime are so absolute that it has no accountability to other branches. So what we have is the Executive branch A) unilaterally dictating domestic policy and B) declaring that it is above accountability.
The other thing that is specious is the invocation of special wartime powers. So, are we always going to be at war because there will always be NGOs out there who want to attack us? Invoking the same kinds of powers that FDR had combating Hitler and Hirohito in the struggle against asymmetrical warfare waged by a few extremists makes me suspicious.
Lastly, Canuckistan makes a powerful final point. Should we trust Bush now (or any future President after him) anymore than we were willing to trust Nixon after Watergate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
...on the other hand, FBI and other feds were severely criticized for not having penetrated the so-called militias and learned of or stopped McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing from unfolding and killing as many as it did in 1995.
This debate moves like a see-saw, and people should acknowledge that they can't have it both ways. Democratic Britain has an MI5, separated from foreign intel. It seems to work for them. Why shouldn't it work for us?
There are, after all, foreign and domestic threats to U.S. national security -- it isn't in the Republicans' imagination. |
There ain't jack shoot threatening our national security. Just as Saddam was an overblown pile of lies, just as the USSR was an overblown pile of lies, the threat from Al Queda is an overblown pile of lies. It's all smoke and mirrors. Fact is, if we weren't bleeding ourselves dry in Iraq we could easily contain the threat. Instead we have created 5 or 6 TIMES the causualties from 911 by our own misadventures, not to mention 2/3 the deaths.... (and tens of thousands of Iraqis)
... and the damage to the economy...
... the losses to our freedoms....
What those scumbags have done with their end-arounds around the constitution is criminal. Literally. Neither the Executive NOR the Legislative has that power. The constitution belongs to *US*, not the idiots we let get into office.
The only thing that is going to protect our future from threats within or without is the bedrock of that document. Without it, there IS NO HOPE because we are then living solely on fear. Just as Bush wants it. If we stop at least TRYING to live up to those ideals (and God knows we fail constantly as it is), we have already lost. Letting those rights be abrogated mortgages our future freedoms. And beleive me, the threat is far greater from within than without.
Just ask Ceasar.
We are dealing with an administration that scoffs at people defending the rights of Americans. It is an administration, supported by the unholy cabal in the Congress (allow me my hyperbole, though it is barely that), that considers itself above the law, and says so openly. The 1978 law makes it abundantly clear that they are breaking the law AND DON'T CARE. This is a president who rails at democracy as being the stumbling block to freedom!!!
(Rgarding Congress: My God!!! How many subpeonas? 5? 6? 7? How is that even POSSIBLE?? Most of the Clinton investigations were about issues pre-presidency, for crying out loud! Then we impeach him for saying he did not ahve sexual relations with *that* woman? Have we gone mad?? We have strong evidence of serious tampering in TWO presidentioal elections! We have strong evidence of leading the nation to war based on utter deception. We have evidence of illegal prisons, torture, illegal wiretaps... And the Republican Congress does NOTHING. We are a joke, a rube, a lying and devious hypocrite to teh rest of the world... and the rest of the world is *right*.)
If I were still religious I would swear we were in the end times. Bush is perfect description of the Anti-Christ. The years as the great savior, the turn into the darkness, the grabbing for power....
It's frightening even without the religious elements!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Should we trust Bush now (or any future President after him) anymore than we were willing to trust Nixon after Watergate? |
No. We shouldn't trust any president. None of them are trustworthy and all of them should always be watched and questioned, by the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the press.
But we do have a machinery that functions pretty well, if not always on time. Sooner or later, the executive is checked. (In our times, see Nixon, see Reagan...and now see W. Bush). Cast the partisan hyperbole aside and see that the Constitution is alive and well.
And we shouldn't be so focused on W. Bush, either. These things go in cycles in the U.S. Following Pearl Harbor, there was outrage. FDR, with British guidance, created OSS, an intel service and subversive warfare system. After the war, the country feared it would become a U.S. Gestapo, and it was disbanded forthwith, barely given two-weeks' notice. Then the Cold War, and most importantly, the Korean War broke out and the surviving intel services were lambasted for not predicting them. Then CIA was created and beefed up. Then, years later, Senator Church called the Agency a rogue elephant, a threat to democracy, and he gutted it, and limited executive authority with respect to covert operations. Comes now 9/11 and great criticism and demands that W. Bush reform the intel community and "fix what's wrong so it can never happen again." Now people are beginning to fear that it's becoming too powerful and concerns like those voiced in this thread are appearing in many fora.
It's a see-saw in the U.S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
all of them should always be watched and questioned, by the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the press.
But we do have a machinery that functions pretty well, if not always on time. Sooner or later, the executive is checked. (In our times, see Nixon, see Reagan...and now see W. Bush). Cast the partisan hyperbole aside and see that the Constitution is alive and well.
|
Good point. I'd like to add to it by saying it always ultimately depends on an active citizenry insisting that the mechanisms do their constitutionally- mandated jobs for the system to work properly. These days I'm reminded again and again of the French politician who saw the crowd rush past saying, "Where are they going? I must find out for I must lead them."
I do think the current occupants of the positions of power need extra watching. They don't seem to be as attached to the traditional values that I grew up with. They all seem to come from the John Mitchell school of constitutional thinking...What's wrong with changing the First Amendment? It's just another amendment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
