Back Door Provision-Gives Bush-WARTIME PRESIDENTIAL POWERS

[kpete]

Measure defines war on terror
Bush's proposal makes U.S. effort equivalent to war
By Siobhan Gorman
Sun Reporter
Originally published September 27, 2006

A little- noticed provision in President Bush’s proposal for the treatment of suspected terrorists would for the first time legally endorse the fight against terrorism as equivalent to war, lawmakers and national security lawyers say….

Critics of the provision, such as former CIA counsel Suzanne Spaulding, said it could amount to a back-door endorsement of the disputed wartime presidential powers that Bush has asserted, potentially strengthening his hand in court battles over the National Security Agency’s warrantless spying and permitting defense and intelligence agencies to launch operations in the United States.

“Does it allow the president to basically define the war on terrorism as broadly or as narrowly as he wants?” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff, a California Democrat. “The answer is yes.”

more at:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.warlaw27sep27,0,670613.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

more at:

[Nickster]

1. Someone please explain to me...How is this Constitutional? Why will no

one friggin challenge this? I maybe thick, but I'm sure that the Constitution says that the Decider can not declare war. Am I wrong?

[KitSileya]

4. I believe Pelosi challenged this.

I just saw the clip of her speech in the debate, where she accuses the republicans of shutting down debate on these issues, and challenged them to uphold their oath to defend the constitution. It's just been posted to youtube, the link can be found here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2234161

[Hissyspit]

10. Congress can pass un-Constitutional laws. n/t

[alfredo]

18. Just recently bush said that he is the one that decides if a law

is constitutional, not the supreme court. He said the court is there to settle disputes.

[BrotherBuzz]

12. John Yoo can explain it with twisted circular logic

A brief primer designed to help you understand the workings of our new, streamlined American system of government.

JON CARROLL

Monday, January 2, 2006


Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the president's foremost apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the relevant arguments.

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps of American citizens?

Because he is the president.

Does the president always have that power?

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate.

Why does the president have that power?

It's in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?

It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

Who decides what measures are necessary to keep America safe?

The president.

Who has oversight over the actions of the president?

The president oversees his own actions. If at any time he determines that he is a danger to America, he has the right to wiretap himself, name himself an enemy combatant and spirit himself away to a secret prison in Egypt.

But isn't there a secret court, the FISA court, that has the power to authorize wiretapping warrants? Wasn't that court set up for just such situations when national security is at stake?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might disagree with the president. It might thwart his plans. It is a danger to the democracy that we hold so dear. We must never let the courts stand in the way of America's safety.

So there are no guarantees that the president will act in the best interests of the country?

The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he represents the will of the people. The people would never act against their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against the best interests of the people. It's a doctrine I like to call "the triumph of the will."

But surely the Congress was also elected by the people, and therefore also represents the will of the people. Is that not true?

Congress? Please.

It's sounding more and more as if your version of the presidency resembles an absolute monarchy. Does it?

Of course not. We Americans hate kings. Kings must wear crowns and visit trade fairs and expositions. The president only wears a cowboy hat and visits military bases, and then only if he wants to.

Can the president authorize torture?

No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

Could those appropriate means include torture?

It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism. The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

Won't the American people object?

Not if they're scared enough.

What if the Supreme Court rules against the president?

The president has respect for the Supreme Court. We are a nation of laws, not of men. In the unlikely event that the court would rule against the president, he has the right to deny that he was ever doing what he was accused of doing, and to keep further actions secret. He also has the right to rename any practices the court finds repugnant. "Wiretapping" could be called "protective listening." There's nothing the matter with protective listening.

Recently, a White House spokesman defended the wiretaps this way: "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches." If these very bad people have blown up churches, why not just arrest them?

That information is classified.

Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?

No, they haven't, which is proof that the system works. The president does reserve the right to blow up gay terrorist weddings -- but only if he determines that the safety of the nation is at stake. The president is also keeping his eye on churches, many of which have become fonts of sedition. I do not believe that the president has any problem with commuter trains, although that could always change.

So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?

Election? Let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It may not be wise to have an election in a time of national peril.

[Nickster]

14. Ahhhh, I feel so much better now, it's all so clear. LoL n/t

[Jcrowley]

19. If only that were satire

Lot of nasty stuff goin' on in the DC snakepit.

[King Coal]

24. This is one bad bastard.

http://www.nndb.com/people/327/000049180/

[BrotherBuzz]

30. Indeed, and that makes him eminently qualified to counsel....

Bush* and Alberto Gonzales

[Chipper Chat]

32. His resume says he clerked for Clarence Thomas.

That's all I need to know.

[annabanana]

46. When did he emigrate from Korea? Is he a moonie?

inquiring minds. . . .

[flyarm]

2. good god..where does this end?? we have a moron being run by evil forces

who will have unlimited power..god help us !! and the world!!

fly

[bdamomma]

3. all the more reason to kick his butt out

this sorry excuse of a man who has so much power has so many lives at risk, is it really worth not challenging this guy, just a question and a comment.

[aquart]

5. He always wanted to be our dictator.

Maybe now he'll be happy.

[bdamomma]

6. happy??? to destroy lives and invade innocent countries

and destroy our civil liberties and laws.

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. All of those things will make him happy. He wants to be all powerful.

It feeds his overly self inflated ego. He's hated worldwide and he knows it, revenge is his.

[bdamomma]

17. all powerful until someone or somebody moves the curtain.

[wordpix]

38. RFK, Jr. & KO are doing just that---thank you, & others pulling this

curtain back.

[PinkyisBlue]

40. Bush's entire life has been one failure after another.

He bankrupted an oil company, failed to complete his National Guard Service, has been unable to stay sober, etc. Heck, he can't even ride a bicycle without falling off or win an election without rigging it. But his biggest failures will be during his tenure as the (unelected) President of the USA: the "catastrophically successful" Iraq War, the financial ruin of the American economy, the environmental degradation, the betrayal of the poor, the unfortunate and the middle class. It's quite a legacy he will leave. How many people can say they brought down a nation?

I feel like this whole thing is a game to these thugs in the White House, to see how much damage they can get away with before they're finally stopped.

Rummy has been toying with different phrases for the war on terror. Here's a phrase he can toy with: how about an international skirmish against Islamic bullying nations?

[aquart]

33. Yes.

That is exactly what makes George happy. He's an odd boy, our George.

[wtmusic]

7. Then the so-called "detainees" are "prisoners of war", no?

and subject to the whole range of Geneva provisions which are being ignored

[jsamuel]

15. that is exactly the contridiction this bill is made to resolve

[wtmusic]

16. But it doesn't resolve it at all

The bill doesn't even touch Article 17:

"No physical or mental torture, NOR ANY OTHER FORM OF COERCION, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

They got some 'splainin' to do.

[Occulus]

31. I think I might understand a logical reason to let this pass

IF * gets wartime powers, it becomes even more clear that all the detainees by definition are covered by the full force of the Geneva conventions. If i knew, without doubt, that the detainees will be treated exactly the same under this bill as they have been before its introduction, and I want to nail * for something severe, the best way to go about doing so just might be to let him hang himself.

Passing this bill with no change in actual prisoner treatment would make him a war criminal. If the above is true, that the bill would give * actual war powers, well... it almost looks like he's being set up.

Not that I'm against that; if he's willing to ignore the Conventions (we know he is), he needs to be dealt with. But it seems to me this bill could form a basis for stronger war crimes charges later on down the line. All that said- this method, if it is indeed a clever move legally on the part of those who have had enough, doesn't sit well with me. I'm probably way off base anyway.

:shrug:

edited to add a bit of clarity.

[subterranean]

35. No. The bill defines them as "unlawful enemy combatants."

And it defines "unlawful enemy combatants" as anyone "who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its allies.

Could protesting against or criticizing the War on Terror (and, by extension, the Iraq war) be considered "material support" for hostilities against the United States?

[razors edge]

8. If the democrats don't

put one of those super secrete senator headlock holds on this shit till after the midterms, then what does that say about them?

[bbgrunt]

13. yep. exactly.

[mopinko]

20. it says they are collaborators

period.

[bbgrunt]

11. k and r

[BootinUp]

21. Can we filibuster now? dammit.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Why Worry? The Battlin' Congressional Dems Have Our Back!

They'll use every tool at their disposal to ensure that Americans retain their basic civil liberties, and that America will live up to its obligations of providing basic human rights to combatants.

(mmmm... Golden Triangle... so shiny...)

[bonito]

23. Undeclared martial law by the dictatorship

No military coup, even if they could use it, the US is just to large.

[Julius Civitatus]

29. Martial law and war-time president for life. Nice combo. n/t

[knitter4democracy]

25. If Clinton had tried that, he'd have been strung up.

Are they okay with Hillary having those powers? Frickin' fascists.

[sakabatou]

27. The Clenis strikes again!

[Julius Civitatus]

26. He'll be the WARTIME PRESIDENT FOR LIFE, and his successors

unless of course they decide that having elections interferes with their war as well.

This law not only makes torture the law of the land, for the first time places the American president well above the Constitution, above the law of the land, and responsible to nobody but himself.

The torture legislation effective turns Bush into an American monarch.

Jefferson, Washington, Hancock and the rest of the gang would loooooove that, I'm sure.

[muesa]

28. Life is sinusoidal (the worm turns)

and when President Hillary Clinton appoints NY Governor Elliott Spitzer as Attorney General and former Chittenden County (Burlington) VT prosecutor Pat Leahy as Director of the FBI, and the Democratic Caucus names Charle Rangel as Chairman of the new, reconstituted House Un-American Activities Committee ... things will happen. Bushie and Cheney will do the frog walk.

[subterranean]

34. I urge everyone to read this important article.

This is dangerous, but even more so, as the article says, because of the way Bush has used the post-9/11 resolution and Iraq resolution to justify things that were not even in them, like the NSA warrantless spying program. Who knows what this bill will lead to?

[cultureshock]

44. It will lead to American citizens

being taken from their homes in the middle of the night just for having an Anti-Bush opinion.

[The Wizard]

48. Had that nightmare last night (nt)

[Redstone]

36. Welcome to the United Soviet States of America. And thank you for

posting this. Thank you very much.

Redstone

[civildisoBDence]

37. Even if it does give DUUUUUHbya wartime powers,

how could it possibly do so retroactively?

NSA wiretapping, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Geneva Conventions--this won't change the past, I hope.

Newsprism

[Jcrowley]

39. Bump

What are some of the other provisions slipped in here? In early August Bush was pushing for retroactive protection for a number of war crimes and war criminals. Any word on that being put in this bill?

[leesa]

41. Why are they letting this little thug destroy our country?

[Generator]

43. Exactly I'm gob-smacked , stunned and amazed

Why indeed? A president with an approval rating in the 30's? With a war almost every one knows was based of false info that is going horrendously wrong with no end in sight?

He has no charm. He's not handsome. He's not a great speaker. They say Hitler mesmerized the nation.

Few except the hardcore of the nutbags LIKE this guy.

WHY? Why are we selling our soul for this cretin?

Anyone that EVER gave the German people a bad time must be re-thinking it. I know I am. (I don't mean what they did to the all the Jews and everyone else they killed but how it came to be law, following one man and his thugs and then it was too late) They had already lost huge numbers in one world war and had a horrible depression. WE have no excuse. Except perhaps HOW stupid we are of history.

[ClintonTyree]

47. WE are not........

Congress is, and the reason for that baffles me to no end. Why Congress is so willing, even eager, to cede their Constitutional duties as overseer of this most morally bankrupt Administration is beyond the realm of reason. Why is Congress hell bent on giving Little Boots Bush Dictatorial powers? :shrug: I makes absolutely no sense to me. This lame, "we're at war" bullshit just doesn't cut it. CONGRESS declares war and all they've done so far is give Bush permission to invade Iraq. Bush has taken that as a carte blanch to do anything he wants, whenever he wants and Congress seems perfectly willing to let him. WHY? :mad:

It's more important than ever to sweep the Republicans out of Congress because if they're not willing to oversee Bush's actions, this country is doomed. DOOMED! :grr:

[The Wizard]

49. And

When ever "we're at war" enters the conversation ask them what sacrifices they've made toward that effort. And if they're of the age of military service (they're taking them up 42 now) ask why they haven't enlisted.
One of these punks actually responded with something about a cousin's friend signing up. Nothing but textbook examples of punks and cowards.

[filer]

42. Then there's no stopping us nuking Iran.

No need to consult Congress. Dubya has the power. Let em rip!

[Evergreen Emerald]

51. that was my first thought

He is destroying the three-branches of government. No checks and balances. No unchecked power. No oversight.

We are in trouble.

[filer]

52. It's an unimaginably stupid idea,

widening the war, but then, so was Iraq. And this administration believes it has unlimited power. Post 9/11 thinking, you know. That's why I think they'll do it.

[meowomon]

45. Both Republicans

[redqueen]

50. Kick

:kick: