![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Parting shots
Feb. 8th, 2006 09:36 amI have drill this weekend, starting tomorrow; ending Sunday. I have a few things to do I in Los Angeles, so I shan't be home until Monday afternoon. I ought to be out the door in an hour and a half or so.
I've been up in arms about the NSA thing. Some of those who read me think it a tempest in a teapot. It's not. It's a tipping point. We may not lose the system of government we have right away because of it. Depending on who gets elected, and what they do, and how principled they are we may yet keep it, even if this abuse goes unchecked, but the arguments the White House is making attack the very idea of the United States.
We have a limited Gov't. Very few of the shaping doctrines of the nation are about the powers the State has. Rather we have a system built on prohibitions to the power of the State. From the Declaration of Independence listing the violations of the rights of the people, through the failed attempt of the Articles of Confederation, to the Constitution we use today the guiding principle has been to restrict the power of the Gov't.
Part of that is the use of a triumvirate. Ws call the three branches of the Gov't separate but equal, like a stool this make a stable base. But only so long as all three are working. Take one away and the whole thing falls over. Make one leg too long, or too short, and the system also becomes unstable.
What the White House is arguing is that it can aggregate, to itself; and itself alone, without any oversight, by the Legislative; or Judicial branches, all the powers of the Gov't.
That's something to be afraid of.
It's what that DoJ brief I posted to last week said. It's what their representative said to the Senate on Monday, it's what they've shown the believe in things they've done.
Glenn Greenwald (Unclaimed Territory) says it better than I have here
t is undeniably true that Gonzales, in his testimony, articulated a clear and coherent legal theory to defend Bush’s violations of the law. But that legal defense is so radical, so dangerous, and so contrary to our most basic political values, that the first priority, in my view, is to make Americans aware of exactly what powers the Administration claims it has the right to use -- not just against Al Qaeda, but against American citizens, within the United States.
The Administration’s position as articulated by Gonzales is not that the Administration has the power under the AUMF or under precepts of Article II "inherent authority" to engage in warrantless eavesdropping against Americans. Their argument is much, much broader -- and much more radical -- than that. Gonzales' argument is that they have the right to use all war powers – of which warrantless eavesdropping is but one of many examples – against American citizens within the country. And not only do they have the right to use those war powers against us, they have the right to use them even if Congress makes it a crime to do so or the courts rule that doing so is illegal.
Put another way, the Administration has now baldly stated that whatever it is allowed to do against our enemies in a war, it is equally entitled to exercise all of the same powers against American citizens on American soil. In a Press Release issued on January 27, the DoJ summarized its position on the legality of its actions this way:
In its Hamdi decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the AUMF also authorizes the "fundamental incident(s) of waging war." The history of warfare makes clear that electronic surveillance of the enemy is a fundamental incident to the use of military force.
Gonzales took that argument even one step further on Tuesday by claiming that even in the absence of the AUMF, Article II of the Constitution gives the President the right to employ all "incidents of war" both internationally and domestically – which means that even if Congress repealed the AUMF tomorrow, the Administration, by this view, would still have the absolute and unchecked right (under Article II) to use all war powers against American citizens. Indeed, it claims that it would have those war powers even if Congress passed a law prohibiting the exercise of those powers against Americans.
He goes on to point out that not only do they think this, they've done it.
Jose Padilla.
An American Citizen, on American Soil, was arrested for something he was "planning" to do. He'd done nothing overt, (and now they've not charged him with what they arrested him for, but ignore that... he was a "terrarist"). His arrest wasn't announced for six weeks; in short he was, "dissappeared." He was denied access to counsel, denied something so simple as being charged, held incommunicado; for years.
When challenged on this, the position of the Gov't was simple, "The President did it, because we are at war, and therefore no question can be raised." Executive, Legislative (because Congress has never defined this creature, "the unlawful combatant,") and Judicial, all wrapped up in one man.
There are some words for people who have that much power wrapped up in one bundle, and they are loaded words; words that get one called "moonbat" and shrill, and alarmist and just plain nuts; because "that could never happen here." The words are King, Dictator, Tyrant.
This isn't a partisan issue. It really isn't (much as it is being played that way in the press: it's in the best interests of the president to keep it cast in that light too, because that moves the debate to one of politics, instead of focusin on the real issue). It's an issue about who, and what we are. This is about freedom, and raw power.
Flip the coin. Pick your worst nightmare for president. Nader, LaRouche, David Duke, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, David Drier, Tom Delay, Nancy Pelosi; hell even me, and picture that person in office. Give them the kind of power this administration is claiming. It's not pretty.
We've faced worse crises than this. We've failed to live up to our potential, but we survived the War of 1812 (they burnt our Capital, twice) a Civil War (yes, we slapped Habeus Corpus around some, but it wasn't done as a raw power grab, despite what the apologists for the Confederacy, and water carriers for the present administration might want you to think), WW1 (with the overreactions, and abuses of free-speech) WW2, which was a much greater threat (and the concentration camps we put the Japanese in were an abomination) the Cold War, with The Bomb hanging over our heads and all sorts of scare-mongering, rabble-rousing and the like.
We did it all without saying, "Only the President can save us." That, in a word, is bullshit. We save ourselves, no one else can do it for us. The "War Against Terror" is an existential war, like the War on Poverty, or Drugs. It's a war for our hearts and minds. If we cower, and let ourselves be terrorised, the bad guys win.
If we give up our way of life (I knew some cliché was going to creep in) we lose.
The United States has flaws, great big, gaping, flaws. But it's got something else, it's a hope. We have the means to be great. We sparked a change in the way the entire world is run. Why are we letting ourselves backslide? Why are we giving reactionary (and radical) ideas the time of day?
What the White House is saying, at it's core, is that it doesn't matter if the NSA wiretaps are illegal, because Congress doesn't have the Authority to stop them. That any law which attempts to restrict the Powers of the President (under the odd interpretation of Art. II they are putting forward) is, on its face, unconstitutional, and that they therefore need not obey it. Not that they need to test it in the courts, and find out the Constitutionality of it, but rather they get to disregard it, out of hand.
It's what they did with the signing statements on the McCain Amendment.
The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action
If he thinks he, as Commander in Chief, needs to violate the law, he reserves the right, and (if you look at the last) no one has, "a private right of action," so one can't sue if one is tortured under his violation of the law.
In simple (well, mostly) words he has said he is above the law.
That, my friends, is what it's all about.
I've been up in arms about the NSA thing. Some of those who read me think it a tempest in a teapot. It's not. It's a tipping point. We may not lose the system of government we have right away because of it. Depending on who gets elected, and what they do, and how principled they are we may yet keep it, even if this abuse goes unchecked, but the arguments the White House is making attack the very idea of the United States.
We have a limited Gov't. Very few of the shaping doctrines of the nation are about the powers the State has. Rather we have a system built on prohibitions to the power of the State. From the Declaration of Independence listing the violations of the rights of the people, through the failed attempt of the Articles of Confederation, to the Constitution we use today the guiding principle has been to restrict the power of the Gov't.
Part of that is the use of a triumvirate. Ws call the three branches of the Gov't separate but equal, like a stool this make a stable base. But only so long as all three are working. Take one away and the whole thing falls over. Make one leg too long, or too short, and the system also becomes unstable.
What the White House is arguing is that it can aggregate, to itself; and itself alone, without any oversight, by the Legislative; or Judicial branches, all the powers of the Gov't.
That's something to be afraid of.
It's what that DoJ brief I posted to last week said. It's what their representative said to the Senate on Monday, it's what they've shown the believe in things they've done.
Glenn Greenwald (Unclaimed Territory) says it better than I have here
t is undeniably true that Gonzales, in his testimony, articulated a clear and coherent legal theory to defend Bush’s violations of the law. But that legal defense is so radical, so dangerous, and so contrary to our most basic political values, that the first priority, in my view, is to make Americans aware of exactly what powers the Administration claims it has the right to use -- not just against Al Qaeda, but against American citizens, within the United States.
The Administration’s position as articulated by Gonzales is not that the Administration has the power under the AUMF or under precepts of Article II "inherent authority" to engage in warrantless eavesdropping against Americans. Their argument is much, much broader -- and much more radical -- than that. Gonzales' argument is that they have the right to use all war powers – of which warrantless eavesdropping is but one of many examples – against American citizens within the country. And not only do they have the right to use those war powers against us, they have the right to use them even if Congress makes it a crime to do so or the courts rule that doing so is illegal.
Put another way, the Administration has now baldly stated that whatever it is allowed to do against our enemies in a war, it is equally entitled to exercise all of the same powers against American citizens on American soil. In a Press Release issued on January 27, the DoJ summarized its position on the legality of its actions this way:
In its Hamdi decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the AUMF also authorizes the "fundamental incident(s) of waging war." The history of warfare makes clear that electronic surveillance of the enemy is a fundamental incident to the use of military force.
Gonzales took that argument even one step further on Tuesday by claiming that even in the absence of the AUMF, Article II of the Constitution gives the President the right to employ all "incidents of war" both internationally and domestically – which means that even if Congress repealed the AUMF tomorrow, the Administration, by this view, would still have the absolute and unchecked right (under Article II) to use all war powers against American citizens. Indeed, it claims that it would have those war powers even if Congress passed a law prohibiting the exercise of those powers against Americans.
He goes on to point out that not only do they think this, they've done it.
Jose Padilla.
An American Citizen, on American Soil, was arrested for something he was "planning" to do. He'd done nothing overt, (and now they've not charged him with what they arrested him for, but ignore that... he was a "terrarist"). His arrest wasn't announced for six weeks; in short he was, "dissappeared." He was denied access to counsel, denied something so simple as being charged, held incommunicado; for years.
When challenged on this, the position of the Gov't was simple, "The President did it, because we are at war, and therefore no question can be raised." Executive, Legislative (because Congress has never defined this creature, "the unlawful combatant,") and Judicial, all wrapped up in one man.
There are some words for people who have that much power wrapped up in one bundle, and they are loaded words; words that get one called "moonbat" and shrill, and alarmist and just plain nuts; because "that could never happen here." The words are King, Dictator, Tyrant.
This isn't a partisan issue. It really isn't (much as it is being played that way in the press: it's in the best interests of the president to keep it cast in that light too, because that moves the debate to one of politics, instead of focusin on the real issue). It's an issue about who, and what we are. This is about freedom, and raw power.
Flip the coin. Pick your worst nightmare for president. Nader, LaRouche, David Duke, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, David Drier, Tom Delay, Nancy Pelosi; hell even me, and picture that person in office. Give them the kind of power this administration is claiming. It's not pretty.
We've faced worse crises than this. We've failed to live up to our potential, but we survived the War of 1812 (they burnt our Capital, twice) a Civil War (yes, we slapped Habeus Corpus around some, but it wasn't done as a raw power grab, despite what the apologists for the Confederacy, and water carriers for the present administration might want you to think), WW1 (with the overreactions, and abuses of free-speech) WW2, which was a much greater threat (and the concentration camps we put the Japanese in were an abomination) the Cold War, with The Bomb hanging over our heads and all sorts of scare-mongering, rabble-rousing and the like.
We did it all without saying, "Only the President can save us." That, in a word, is bullshit. We save ourselves, no one else can do it for us. The "War Against Terror" is an existential war, like the War on Poverty, or Drugs. It's a war for our hearts and minds. If we cower, and let ourselves be terrorised, the bad guys win.
If we give up our way of life (I knew some cliché was going to creep in) we lose.
The United States has flaws, great big, gaping, flaws. But it's got something else, it's a hope. We have the means to be great. We sparked a change in the way the entire world is run. Why are we letting ourselves backslide? Why are we giving reactionary (and radical) ideas the time of day?
What the White House is saying, at it's core, is that it doesn't matter if the NSA wiretaps are illegal, because Congress doesn't have the Authority to stop them. That any law which attempts to restrict the Powers of the President (under the odd interpretation of Art. II they are putting forward) is, on its face, unconstitutional, and that they therefore need not obey it. Not that they need to test it in the courts, and find out the Constitutionality of it, but rather they get to disregard it, out of hand.
It's what they did with the signing statements on the McCain Amendment.
The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action
If he thinks he, as Commander in Chief, needs to violate the law, he reserves the right, and (if you look at the last) no one has, "a private right of action," so one can't sue if one is tortured under his violation of the law.
In simple (well, mostly) words he has said he is above the law.
That, my friends, is what it's all about.
