Ninerfan1 Wrote:And I'll restate, the fact that 1) Bush went to congress about the finance tracking program and 2) the Supreme Court heard that case is proof that nothing Bush did is dictatorial.
The president "went to congress"?? Oh come on, now. The president tells some key members some aspects of what he is doing. He doesn't go to get permission. Or did you forget the bipartisan furor after the NSA revelations?
Quote:
Nope. Liberal, when talking about jurists, isn't necessarily political. It's a world view or a judicial philosophy.
OK, so lets be clear: you are saying that the 5 who voted for and the 3 who voted against the Presidents' point had absolutely zero political consideration? You would disagree with anyone saying the 5 "liberals" were voting the way they did because of a political bias?
wvucrazed Wrote:Lawyers in the Bush administration have skirted the law at every opportunity to give Bush this grand notion of a "robust executive power" that Darth Cheney keeps spouting about.
Ninerfan1 Wrote:Proof?
Discussion last night on one of the new shows, I believe it was Dana Milbank of the Washington Post who spoke of his conversations with White House attorneys. Also have read it in the past in Newsweek and Times about the internal struggle in the White House about David Addington's notions about Presidential power. If you are interested, you might do some research and read about it.
Quote:Due process for terrorists. You know if you spent as much time worrying about the rights of people who were actually Americans, the right to life being chief among them, as you do the rights and well being of terrorists there's no telling what could be accomplished.
This is what America is all about: freedom and the rule of law. We cannot break the principles, even when it might be difficult.
Today's Washington Post sums it up perfectly:
****
For five years, President Bush waged war as he saw fit. If intelligence officers needed to eavesdrop on overseas telephone calls without warrants, he authorized it. If the military wanted to hold terrorism suspects without trial, he let it.
Now the Supreme Court has struck at the core of his presidency and dismissed the notion that the president alone can determine how to defend the country. In rejecting Bush's military tribunals for terrorism suspects, the high court ruled that even a wartime commander in chief must govern within constitutional confines significantly tighter than this president has believed appropriate.
For many in Washington, the decision echoed not simply as a matter of law but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission. This ethos is why many supporters find Bush an inspiring leader, and why many critics in this country and abroad react so viscerally against him.
In some ways, the ruling replicates a pattern in American history where presidents have acted aggressively in wartime, only to be reined in by courts or Congress. Even some Bush supporters said yesterday that it may be appropriate now to revisit decisions made ad hoc in a crisis atmosphere, when a president's natural instinct is to do whatever he thinks necessary to guard the nation against attack.
"That's what presidents do, and I say thank goodness for that," said George J. Terwilliger III, deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush. "But once you get past that point . . . both as a matter of law and a matter of culture, a more systemic approach to the use of authority is appropriate."
****
Quote: That is because they are, in fact, Americans. These terrorists are not. You're all about the law you show me where in our constitution terrorists have a right to due process.
So you basically think we can treat any individual not an American citizen anyway we feel like? No rules, no nothing? What ARE the rules?
Quote:
Terrorists don't fight for a country, therefore they don't have a right to Geneva Convention protection. As far as our standing in the world, give me a freaking break.
I know you folks don't think our standing in the world matters - screw the rest of the world, right? But the reality is that we depend on our allies, and we certainly could use their help now. But "they hate our freedom", right? They are anti-american in a completely irrational way. You might laugh at the concept of our standing in the world, but it is of vital importance.
Quote:
Yeah, cause goodness knows they were looking for a reason to hate us before Gitmo ever existed.
What are you talking about? We had wide support after 9/11, internationally. Bush has managed to throw that all away.
Quote:Gore never would have attempted to defend us to begin with.
Al Gore has been in service to this country for decades, as a Senator and Vice President. Do you really think it appropriate to call him a coward? That is where partisan politics is so blinding, and why I am right when I say that you would have zero support for Gore if he were in Bush's shoes right now, doing exactly what Bush is doing.
Quote:He has precedent on his side regarding military tribunals. The court vered from that precedent in their decision.
Congress and the courts have slapped down the chief executive in times of war in the past when he overreached his authority. THAT is the precedent that matters, and thank God the Supreme Court was willing to stand up to the executive again.
***
Anyways, this has been a good discussion, but I have to get back to work. Hopefully we can continue at a later time.