. . . he would have used more coercive tactics to stop the New York Times (as well as its West Coast counterpart for the latter story) from publishing details about the NSA program to monitor the international calls of terrorist suspects and last week’s story about the SWIFT program to track terrorist financing.
In comments to this blog, some of our critics borrowing unsubstantiated (except by their own rhetoric) notions from other left-leaning blogs claim that the president wants dictatorial powers. Andrew Sullivan calls him a “quasi-monarchical president.”
But, if the president were really attempting to exercise such powers, he would have not have used gentle suasion with the editors of the New York Times. Instead of trying to talk them out of publishing the story, he would have threatened the paper or sent armed thugs to rub them out.
President Bush has perhaps endured more mean-spirited and inaccurate attacks since taking office than any of his predecessors. But, as we know from recent experience, he has not been alone in suffering such slights. Indeed, newspapers and political opponents have been making nasty, unwarranted accusations against presidents going back to Thomas Jefferson at least — and perhaps even to George Washington.
To suffer that some people will level such unwarranted and dishonest attacks is the price we pay for the freedoms guaranteed to these hatemongers by the First Amendment. As hateful as their speech is, to prevent their speaking out would be wrong for a great variety of reasons. Not only would it deny them their freedom to speak out, but it would also lead to a slippery slope where even honest disagreement could be punished. And then there’s the key question of who would decide.
While I strongly believe that our media and the Chief Executive’s political adversaries should criticize the president when they disagree with his actions or proposals, in an ideal world, no leader would have to suffer the unsubstantiated allegations leveled by an arrogant press and vindictive opponents as has President Bush. But, that’s part of a free society. No dictator, however, would tolerate such opposition.
That President Bush has done nothing to silence the mean-spirited accusations of his opponents proves that he is anything but a dictator. That his critics continue to so attack him shows that they recognize as much. Their very rhetoric belies their arguments.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
no one is saying he’s an actual dictator. they are saying he has expanded the powers of the executive branch in an unprecedented way. which he has and I’m sure he would acknowledge that. One of his attorneys, John Yoo, is a famous advocate for tha sort of thing
Expanded the Executive’s powers? Perhaps. In an unprecedented way, definitely not. He has assiduously relied on precedent in making his decisions, particularly those related to the War on Terror.
#1: This is true, it’s called the unitary executive theory. While not necessarily implying true dictatorship, it in effect results in an elected monarchy in which the monarch does not necessarily feel compelled to obey laws passed by the legislative branch or upheld by the judicial branch. Certainly, with his signing statements, Bush has told the Congress in no uncertain terms that he will ignore a law if he feels it’s necessary in this time of “war.” Yesterday, he implied the same about decisions of the Supreme Court http://tinyurl.com/emcoy :
“At any rate, we will seriously look at the findings, obviously. And one thing I’m not going to do, though, is I’m not going to jeopardize the safety of the American people. People have got to understand that.”
Although he then states he will abide by the SCOTUS findings, does anyone really believe he will do so if HE thinks it might jeopardize American safety? I’ll think it won’t be long before we get to see how far he’s prepared to go. Certainly as is pointed out here http://tinyurl.com/nzhlq , there are key findings in Hamdan that directly knock down the unitary executive theory.
Of course, we are told that this “war” will last indefinitely – how can it not since there is no opposing state to ever agree to a peace treaty? So, if Bush has his way, we are faced with what amounts to a king elected every four years for the foreseeable future. Somehow, I don’t think that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Is it actually unprecedented during war?
I’m not saying that Bush is actively working to reduce the size and scope of government, but the rhetoric most certainly is that he *wants* to be a dictator and our freedoms are in dire danger.
Try to get someone simply to admit that it’s right and good for the State to have and keep some secrets and see where it gets you. Classifying military and intelligence information is not new with the Bush administration, yet even asking to keep secrets about admitedly legal (as opposed to probably legal but potentially troublesome, even though the information collected hasn’t been abused) programs, and were told that we’re facing the prospect of totalitarian horror, or some such.
Since when?
I view it as an outgrowth of the notion that in order to be a uniter and not a divider Bush has an obligation to govern as though Gore or Kerry had won the elections.
The bar is set entirely unrealistically. And I’ve had people tell me straight out that it really and truely *is* wrong for Bush to behave as a Republican in office, so I’m not making it up. He’s a “divider” because he doesn’t agree to do things according to the Democratic party platform. It’s bizarre.
And this idea that the US Government does not have the right to keep secrets because of the principles of a democracy and accountability to the public and freedom of the press… I’m NOT making this up… it’s portrayed like Bush is trying to get away with something shady.
Suddenly we aren’t supposed to have secrets?
Unprecedented?
*snort* *giggle* *hysterical laughter*
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, jailed political opponents, and banned ‘critical’ newspapers from the mail.
During WWI, Wilson passed the Sedition act which reads (in part) that people were forbidden to
FDR rounded up over 100,000 men, women, and children of Japanese descent (more than half were U.S. citizens) and sent them to internment camps after requiring them to quickly make arrangements for all property they could not carry (forcing most to sell at substantial losses). The ‘relocation’ orders remained in effect for over 2 years.
And each of the three used a draft (a.k.a. conscription or involuntary servitude) to run their wars.
I may not like everything President Bush does (nor even everything he does in the name of fighting terrorism), but if anything is unprecedented, it is his restraint in expanding executive powers.
And note that Bush areed to abide by Hamdan, when he could have followed the example of FDR in the Quirin case — sent the attorney general to the justices to tell them that if they ruled that the president lacked the authority to order a military tribunal and to carry out the sentence imposed, he would order th tribunal held and the executions to proceed without regard to anything the court said.
I do believe that the President has attempted to strengthen the powers of the executive during this war. In between wars the Congress gradually reasserts itself, and there is a natural balance that is attained. If you know history like a few of the above posts note…Presidents do what they must to WIN these wars. The left doesn’t believe we are at war. Many that I hear, simply believe that if we don’t bother the terrorists so much, we will be fine. When you are the leader of a country of 290 million souls and 3000 are murdered on 9/11, I believe it would change most of us. Yeah, critics are one thing in our Republic. I just wish leftists had a bit more class and weren’t just Bush haters. More people might take their specific points to heart if they weren’t so over the top constantly. They show the ignorance of history, the things FDR did during WW2 and what Lincoln did as well. Don’t forget the smaller battles to maintain our freedom. Reagan’s Granada, Panama Bush 41, TR in Cuba. Leftists wouldn’t have fought any of them. Were they all Nazis?
OK, I’ll be honest: I’m not a blind Bush lover, some things in this administration piss me off. With that said, however, I’m sorry-but I’m not seeing “night of the long knives” going on either.
A friend and I agree that this is sometimes seen a sissy war. By that we mean- think about it- in the old days- after a 9-11, Afganistan would have been turned into glass. End of story: so sad, so sorry. But now it seems like we need a warrant for arrest. Then get attcked by the courts. And answer to Europe!
I’m no politician, nor with a military background. But this seems like a crappy deal.
No one is claiming that Bush is a literal Dictator ala Stalin GPW and you know it. The post is an attempt to place a red herring into the mix by attacking things no one has said instead of addressing any of the actual concerns that have been brought up about this President. And not all those concerns come from Democrats or Liberals either.
His zealous use of signing statements to remove himself from the responsibility of either following or upholding the laws that Congress passes cannot possibly be viewed as Executive restraint. If he didn’t want or like the laws he should have vetoed them or worked with Congress to get something he could live with. He instead chose the option to simply ignore a whole branch of our government. (and BTW, the “will” of the people, as expressed through our elected representatives.)
People who complain continually about “judicial tyranny” have turned a deliberate blind eye to this Presidents own obsessive controlling impulses. Even when his actions can’t be be false-justified by the War on Terror.
I will make some predictions. That in the last days of his office he will give more Presidential pardons than any recent predecessor.
And another sure bet is that when a Democratic President gets back into the oval office, the name of George W. Bush will be universally reviled by Republicans for setting such a vast precedent for expanding Executive power.
re: “in an ideal world, no leader would have to suffer the unsubstantiated allegations leveled by an arrogant press and vindictive opponents as has President Bush. But, that’s part of a free society. No dictator, however, would tolerate such opposition.”
no, bush doesn’t personally get involved with smearing political opponents…he just has his minnions do it for him…swift-boating it’s called.
face it: this administration if filthy beyond words. they have no respect for the constitution and have continually broken the law.
thankfully the supreme court is pulling back his powers, but unfortunately, the congress will enable him to seize more power, as they’ve allowed him to illegally eavesdrop on americans among other crimes.
george w. bush has committed impeachable offenses. he’s the traitor. he should be removed from office, charged, and tried.
#7: “Presidents do what they must to WIN these wars.”
All well and good but exactly how do we win a war against a tactic (terror)? How exactly do you expect terror to surrender? Bush is setting us up for a PERMANENT change in the structure of our Republic. You know damn well you’d be pissing and moaning if it was Hillary Clinton doing it.
#8: “By that we mean- think about it- in the old days- after a 9-11, Afganistan would have been turned into glass.”
Really? Give me an example of that happening within the last two centuries.
#10 Swiftboating… LOL. Can’t think of ONE reason any vietnam vet would spontaneously revolt against “ghengis khan” Kerry. Not a single one. No way.
Must have been a government plot, man. Because, Kerry, he’s like one righteous dude.
Btw Dan, do you know which “leftist” stated the following?
“If President Bush is totally unapologetic and says, ‘I continue to maintain that as a wartime President I can do anything I want — I don’t need to consult any other branches,’ that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath, because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that… would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.”
#10 Spot on except that your post has a typo. Somehow when you typed Clinton it came out Bush. It must be some sort of Microsoft/DLC/Leiberman/ Fox News Conspiracy. Death to the lying neocon fascist opressors!!!!
#12: “Because, Kerry, he’s like one righteous dude.”
Kerry risked his life in Viet Nam. Commander Codpiece, of course, did not.
#11 – #7 – You win a war against terror by choosing a likely catalyst and adressing the root causes which, to a large extent, is the tyranny typical of the middle east. You hope that by adressing a limited venue pressure will be put on periferal tyrannies. Encouraging free speech in Egypt, votes for women in Kuwait, a bit of economic reform and generally emboldening local reform movements.
#11 – #8 – In the old days the idea of specifically separating the enemy government from the people of a country, attacking one while doing absolutely everything possible to NOT attack the people would be completely unheard of. If not glass, it would certainly be “destroy the country” first and foremost. Though as some people pointed out to those advocating bombing Afghanistan to the stone age… it would be redundant.
#1 You are WRONG!!!!! Bush is a DICTATOR!!!! Anyone denies this FACT is an accomplice to MURDER!!!!
Ian I know the enemy uses the tactic of terror, but when they are eliminated one by one I think you and they would agree we are winning.
And as far as the executives powers go…the Congress over time retains and gives some of their powers. Because in war times they know the Commander and Chief needs to react and can’t wait for the NYT to take polls. I’m convinced that many on the left are outraged at things happening now that have happened in every war in our history. They are just ignorant of American history. And i do think we created some “glass” in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Wow Boo Boo, you should make a sign and also write on it VOTE DEMOCRAT as well. We’d appreciate it.
#15 Kerry risked his life in Viet Nam. Correction, he unintentionally risked his life. When he realised his mistake, he manufactured a way to get out a soon as possible. We can all witness the magnitude of his sacrifice by the visible toll that his heroic 3 month tour took on his body. Fortunately the hair was left uninjured.
#8: “By that we mean- think about it- in the old days- after a 9-11, Afganistan would have been turned into glass.”
Really? Give me an example of that happening within the last two centuries.
Hiroshime and Nagasaki. That’s two, but it was in the same country. And Germany was mostly rubble, don’t forget.
Kerry risked his life in Viet Nam. Commander Codpiece, of course, did not.
In the 90’s, the Democrats complained bitterly that bringing up Bill Clinton’s draft dodging was unfair. Why would they do it now, if Vietnam was so horrible and evil it was patriotic dissent to skip service? Because it might hurt Bush, of course. This is a woeful inconsistency on the Left. Either Vietnam was a bad thing and people were right to avoid the fighting in any way (like Clinton and Bush), or it was honorable and people were right to have “proudly” served (like Clinton and McCain). You can’t have it both ways.
Gryph in #9, the president is not the first to use signing statements. The precedent goes back at least as far as Andrew Jackson. I just wish he used his veto pen more often.
And I’ll take you up on your prediction about last-minute pardons. I’ll say he won’t issue half as many as Clinton did.
Rightiswrong, thank you for my evening chuckle. Synova gave a good response in #12.
#19 You really evil , oil soaked, second hand smoker!!!! Rethugs like you are the reason that the USA isn’t a progressive country like France or Burma!!!! My shoes hurt and it’s your fault!!!! Free Mumia, free love and free tacos!!!!
If someone actually paid attention to what the swiftboat vets said instead of uncritically believing the “it’s just a smear” hype… they wouldn’t say Kerry wasn’t brave. Brave they gave him for the simple fact of being on a swiftboat. I watched all their interviews on their website and it was *amazing* the lengths they’d go to to avoid saying he was a coward in any way.
Yes, Kerry risked his life in Vietnam. Is this a “moral authority” issue? His service can’t be questioned? Well, the number of highly decorated, bi-partisan (yes, a lot of these guys were Democrats) vietnam vets, swiftboat vets… well, they also risked their lives in Vietnam. So where does that leave you?
And later quite a number of former POW’s joined the swiftboat vets, those men who had been in prisons in the North and tortured to get them to make claims that Kerry made freely in the US press after he returned home?
Yeah… all a political smear. NO ONE could really be honestly upset by that. Uh huh.
No vietnam vet, all on their own, would be upset about Winter Soldier, or Kerry throwing his (actually, someone elses, he now says) medals away but wanting to have them too, or any of the assinine statements he’s made that entirely ignore the horrific genocide that occured after we abandoned south east asia, and THEN wanting to run for president and commander of the military on his MILITARY CREDS?
So someone says, let’s LOOK at those military creds… and it’s a smear… a “swiftboating”… and all those *other* vets? Political tools. But Kerry risked HIS life in Vietnam so don’t dare question that service.
And now we’re “swiftboating” Murtha… because, ya know, he served in the military and that makes his opinion and any bloviating he does completely beyond reproach. Nevermind that it is often former or active military that are the most upset and who have declared that he is *definately* an EX-marine. Somehow, ya know, military counts if you’re a Democrat but it doesn’t count at all if you *criticize* a Democrat.
Not active duty officers, though, because criticizing a Congressman is prohibited if you’re a serving officer. Did you know that? They *can’t* criticize Murtha without coming afoul the UCMJ.
Swiftboating… egad.
Sorry, my bad. VOTE DEMOCRAT!!!!
“That President Bush has done nothing to silence the mean-spirited accusations of his opponents proves that he is anything but a dictator.” I think folks like Joseph Wilson Valerie Plame, Wesley Clark, etc. might possibly disagree with this statement.
He seems to continually direct congress to do exactly what he wants. I just love the fact that Specter (who I’m not a big fan of by any means) is keeping Bush at bay. I’m waiting for the day when Chancellor Palpa….er….President Bush tries to vote himself emergency powers to deal with the war on terror. Your comparison of Bush to Jefferson and Washington would throw me into fits of laughter if I wasn’t so sickened by the idea of comparing this idiot to 2 of the great men who started this country.
Sorry, but every time this boob opens his mouth, I can’t help thinking of James Gregory as Senator Iselin in the original Manchurian Candidate. It makes me wonder who exactly is Mrs. Iselin in this bunch.
“The speech is short. But it’s the most rousing speech I’ve ever read. It’s been worked on, here and in Russia, on and off, for over eight years. I shall force someone to take the body away from him and Johnny will really hit those microphones and those cameras with blood all over him, fighting off anyone who tries to help him, defending America even if it means his own death, rallying a nation of television viewers to hysteria, to sweep us up into the White House with powers that will make martial law seem like anarchy.”
Conservatives using a external enemy to slowly consolidate and solidify its hold? It could happen.
20: Yeah, unlike Bush who never did anything that would even invoke the remote possibility that he would step out of the country to go anywhere near Vietnam. And by the way, President Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, not exactly his daddy getting him a cushy National Guard spot….Clinton earned a distinctive educational achievement (after coming from a less than rich family, less than politically connected family, thank you very much). You might even say that he had “other priorities”, much like your beloved Dick Cheney seems to get away with about why *he’s* never served.
4: Sorry, but the fact his administration hired more convicted criminals than any other president in history and that he associated with folks (ie Ken “kennyboy” Lay) who were convicted of fraud and destroyed people’s lives makes him a weeeee bit suspect.
Kevin, thanks for a laugh. Just note that not only are left-wing bloggers, columnists and reporters free to criticize this president so too are liberal politicians. And this conservative blogger is letting you use his bandwidth to badmouth the President of the United States.
Kevin, please chill. Irrational hate and fear are bad for the cardiovascular system. We all want you to be around to witness the Rethug Victory in 08.
Peace Out,
BoBo
#9
No one is claiming that Bush is a literal Dictator ala Stalin GPW and you know it.
You’re full of shit and you know it.
If libs weren’t claiming that, they wouldn’t have repeated it over and over and over and over AD NAUSEUM the past few years. Don’t give us that crap hoping that we’re too damn stupid.
#10
no, bush doesn’t personally get involved with smearing political opponents…
No, Bush doesn’t personally get involved with smearing political opponents because he’s better than that. He doesn’t personally care what whiney little piss ants like you think of him.
he just has his minnions do it for him…swift-boating it’s called.
Ahhh.
So Kerry had his minions pay campaign workers with crack, register dead and fictional people as Democrats, slash the tires of vehicles rented to get voters to the polls (talk about disenfranchising voters), and break into, vandalize and shoot up campaign headquarters, right?
george w. bush has committed impeachable offenses. he’s the traitor. he should be removed from office, charged, and tried.
Bring it on! Good luck with that, douchebag.
#11
You know damn well you’d be pissing and moaning if it was Hillary Clinton doing it.
Nope. We know damn well that Hillary wouldn’t lift a pretty fat finger to do anything about it. Bill COULD have done it, but he didn’t give a shit.
You should know it too, but of course you’re not honest enough to admit it.
Really? Give me an example of that happening within the last two centuries.
As mentioned above, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Berlin. Berlin was body for body revenge for the British victims of the Blitz.
Shall I go on?
#21: “Hiroshime and Nagasaki. That’s two, but it was in the same country.”
The intent was to force a surrender not to turn Japan into “glass.” Same goes for Germany.
“it was patriotic dissent to skip service”
Except in the case of Bush and the other chickenhawks, they actually voiced support for the war as long as their sorry asses weren’t on the line.
President Bush has partially restored the Executive powers granted by the Constitution, but only partially. JFK had far more Executive power than Bush has exercised, and could Constitutionally exericse — and no legislation can take away powers granted by the Constitution.
I’m glad someone brought up previous examples of overreaching authority by Presidents such as Adams, Lincoln, Wilson and FDR. Each of these were examples of egregious overstepping of their authority and each of them were eventually turned back by either the courts or the voters by electing a congress of the opposing party. Often times these expansions occur during war time as well. But what war are we in now? We are in a war akin to the Cold War, not a literal engagement. Using the logic of the “War on Terror” = presidential war powers, all presidents from Truman through Bush I had war power to take otherwise extreme actions. I don’t think anyone would claim this with a straight face. You can’t even use the argument that the existing use of military in the Afghanistan and Iraq situation constitutes a literal war anymore either. We were at war with the Taliban and Saddam governments of those countries. The governments in those countries, at least for the time being, are now friendly governments. To say that Bush gets war powers because we still have troops there would have been akin to Reagan declaring war powers when we went into Grenada, Bush I when he went into Somalia and Clinton when we went into the Balkans. The bottom line is the war powers argument doesn’t hold water.
Now we have recently had the Supreme Court rule that a lot of Bush’s expanded powers overstepped constitutional authority. Of course that means they are activist judges, as if the judiciary isn’t a third branch of government anymore. FDR had the same temper tantrum when the SC court overruled some of his overstepping, and he promptly tried to remake the court, as Bush & Co. have been doing for the last 6 years. However voters eventually turned him back during a mid-term election. Let’s hope the American people can be smart enough to do the same thing this time around.
Everyone on the board that has no problems with all the expanded war powers, just imagine them in the hands of Hillary. She worked wonders with the IRS when her husband was President. Imagine what she could do with the wonderful new programs Bush has set up in the name of making us feel safer.
#36 To the extent that the Clintons used the IRS… it’s not as though that was legitimate in any way whatsoever. So why should I think that Hillary would be constrained by precident or only operate in the confines of whatever are accepted as legitimate powers of the executive?
I figure that the only limit ever on Hillary is her own self-interest. Because of that she doesn’t particularly scare me because self-interest is probably the strongest control possible.
You’re really very good at moonbatese. It’s scary, kind of.
Except in the case of Bush and the other chickenhawks, they actually voiced support for the war as long as their sorry asses weren’t on the line.
There’s that B.S. line again. God forbid anybody support America or her military.
Interesting, the Hamdan decision lays the groundwork for war crimes prosecution of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
http://tinyurl.com/j7xa5
Cato notices the possibility too http://tinyurl.com/fx93e :
“Both the majority and concurrence cite 18 U.S.C. § 2241, which Justice Kennedy stresses makes violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention a war crime punishable as a federal offense, enforceable in federal civil court. The majority holds, of course, that trying pesons[sic] under the president’s military commission order violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, suggesting that trial is a war crime within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2241.”
Sully also gets it http://tinyurl.com/hlqoh . Yea Andrew! I wonder if there’s a Presidential suite at Gitmo?
Ian, Andrew Sullivan’s reading of Gitmo takes it more out of context than does much of the MSM. It doesn’t even come close to laying the groundwork for War Crimes Tribunals against the president. Andrew’s reading of the court’s opinion is even more twisted than the court’s reading of the Geneva Convention.
As I understand it, it was a rather narrow holding, easily remedied by legislative action. Like Andrew, you’re reading into the opinion things you want to see and finding things that just aren’t there.
#41: Actually, Dan, I’m just identifying others who have made the claim that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have arguably committed war crimes. I’m not a lawyer and I didn’t even stay in a Holdiay Inn Express last night. But here are some actual lawyers commenting:
http://tinyurl.com/ewm4y
http://tinyurl.com/egvxc
Do I believe that Bushco might ever be subjected to war crimes prosecution? No, I don’t think so. Republicans would never stand for it and the Dems are too wussy to try.
Interesting pieces you linked, Ian, but it appears that the scholars are interpreting what the Court said — and not what it actually said. One of the writers served on the legal team of Hamdan, so obviously he will be spinning this to favor his side. But, they did not say the President committed War Crimes. Only Andrew wondered as much.
Other bloggers have seen it as a relatively narrow holding.
If the president believes (and courts have backed him up on this) that Article 3 of the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists, then there is no way to make a claim that he was committing war crimes, given that the law was murky at the time. The closely-divided Supreme Court indicates as much.
And indeed, it appears that the court did not reach a conclusion on the applicability of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention as I understand that Justice Kennedy did not concur with that part of the opinion, thus it does not have precendential value.
It is, as I understand it, a relatively narrow holding which does not seem to have reached a defnitive conclusion as to whether Article 3 applies.
#43 GayPatriotWest — July 2, 2006 @ 4:49 am – July 2, 2006
And indeed, it appears that the court did not reach a conclusion on the applicability of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention as I understand that Justice Kennedy did not concur with that part of the opinion, thus it does not have precendential value.
You really should take the time to at least read the syllabus of the opinion–it’s only a few pages. According to the syllabus:
JUSTICE KENNEDY, agreeing that Hamdan’s military commission is unauthorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U. S. C.§§836 and 821, and the Geneva Conventions, concluded that there is therefore no need to decide whether Common Article 3 of the Conventions requires that the accused have the right to be present at all stages of a criminal trial or to address the validity of the conspiracy charge against Hamdan. Pp. 17–19.
No, Kennedy did indeed concur that the Geneva Conventions applied. But, although he concluded that the GCs applied, he apparently believed that it was unnecessary for the court to determine at that point in time what minimum procedural safeguards might be required under the conventions, and, in particular, under CA3. That was probably correct: until the US government came up with procedural safeguards in conformity with the court’s opinion, the court would have nothing to opine on.
Regarding
But, they did not say the President committed War Crimes.
No, of course not. The issue was not presented to the court. Nor will it be.
But, Bush (and Rumsfeld and Cheney) after they leave office might be well-advised to consider where they might want to travel to. If they travel to a country that is a signatory to the International Criminal Court, they might find themselves in a similar position as that of Chile’s General Pinochet a few years ago. Although, I sincerely doubt that our inCurious George will be going to a foreign country anytime soon after he leaves office, so he won’t have to worry.
This thread is absolutely hysterical.
First, there are too many moonbat code words and phrases to count (excluding BoBo’s parodys!).
But I love the backtracking so typical of liberals…. “But, but… I never SAID he was a dictator.” Yes you have. Why can’t liberals ever actually stick to the values they hold? (I think I’ve answered it by simply asking the question….. they don’t keep any values).
Exactly so!
You gotta lov leftists like raj. He actually says what most of them believe. 9/11 happens “It’s Bushes fault” No attacks since…”throw Bush and Cheney in international prison.” Lovely. The SWIFT NYT dustup makes me more positive about the 06 elections all the time. Did you read that Air America is imploding? I read that the 2 remaining viable on air personalities Rhodes and Franken are picking it clean.
45: I’ll say it: I think he and his staff would be quite happy if he didn’t have to deal with the nuisance that is congress and the courts to do whatever he pleases. The ruling by the Supreme Court this week shows that there are still those who believe in the constitution to reign in a leader who tries to step outside the law.
“It’s annoying that we have to fight elections for our cause
The inconvenience, having to get a majority.
If normal methods of persuasion fail to win us applause
There are other ways of establishing authority….”
–from “Evita”, 1976, Andrew Lloyd Webber & Tim Rice
And by the way; so much for the lack of name-calling from the person who runs this site to promote healthy political discourse.
No one is claiming that Bush is a literal Dictator ala Stalin GPW and you know it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative
=
TGC,
So right. Bush is not a literal dictator and this is not actually a real war.
If it were a real war it would be the war against Al-Quaeda. We would have invaded Afghanistani Al-Quaeda training camps, gotten rid of the Talliban and the drug warlords and made it a better country than before and turned our sights on all those Saudi Wahabbi enabelers.
But because this is a War against Terrorism, like the Cold War, the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, it is a metaphoric war. There is no way to ever know when this war is actually won. This President needs the actual War against the Insurgency he created in Iran, because after that, what? He can never declare a victory in a metaphoric war. It will just go on and on and on. There is no Berlin Wall for this conflict. (And that took 50 years.)
#47 Gene in Pennsylvania — July 2, 2006 @ 9:17 pm – July 2, 2006
You gotta lov leftists like raj. He actually says what most of them believe. 9/11 happens “It’s Bushes fault”…
I’m just amazed at the ability of (some) conservatives to read minds of people hundreds of miles away. It’s just uncanny what magical abilities (some) conservatives claim to have.
/sarcasm
#49 chandler in Hollywood — July 3, 2006 @ 1:02 am – July 3, 2006
But because this is a War against Terrorism, like the Cold War, the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, it is a metaphoric war.
Yes, and just who or what is the US at war with now? Eurasia or Eastasia?
Oceania?
#52 chandler in Hollywood — July 3, 2006 @ 8:56 am – July 3, 2006
Oceania?
It’s doubtful that the US would be at war with its lapdog ally.
Who would have thought we would count Japan and Germany as some of out strongest economic partners and be at odds with France. Politics creates some interesting history. It is not beyond speculation that our next big demonized enemy may be…Israel. Such are lapdogs.
–
The usual strawman. GPW spins, as usual, a comment to its absurdist excess and then proves that Bush does not meet the definition of a true dictator. Duh.
In any case, fascist governments are not created overnight, as any reader of history knows. No, Bush does not send out Storm Troopers in the middle of the night, but he creates phony threats to make political hay with — like this latest business about the Times’ reporting of something he’d talked about himself and that is described on the relevant agency’s own website.
I read the Blog Nice site I found and I bookmarked the site… Plan on coming back later to spend a little time there.