This is a fascinating commentary on how the freedoms and rights the administration is claiming we are fighting to instill around the world are being systematically stripped away back home in order to increase the power of the presidency. Read this article and answer this question: Are you scared yet?
The real reason the Bush administration won’t back down on Guantanamo
Why is the United States poised to try Jose Padilla as a dangerous terrorist, long after it has become perfectly clear that he was just the wrong Muslim in the wrong airport on the wrong day?
Why is the United States still holding hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, long after years of interrogation and abuse have established that few, if any, of them are the deadly terrorists they have been held out to be?
And why is President Bush still issuing grandiose and provocative signing statements, the latest of which claims that the executive branch holds the power to open mail as it sees fit?
[…]
But it has finally become clear that the goal of these foolish efforts isn’t really to win the war against terrorism; indeed, nothing about Padilla, Guantanamo, or signing statements moves the country an inch closer to eradicating terror. The object is a larger one, and the original overarching goal of this administration: expanding executive power, for its own sake.
The endgame in the war on terror isn’t holding the line against terrorists. It’s holding the line on hard-fought claims to absolutely limitless presidential authority.
But to what end? So he increases the power of the oval office, then what? He is out of office in a little while anyway. Do you think the next guy will just say, “sweet, thank’s bush!” No, he’ll undo all the executive orders and it will be back to the way you like it.
Scared? One didn’t have to wait until now to realize the nature of Bush’s presidency. Many people desperately tried raise alarm only to be dismissed as ‘liberals’, ‘un-American’ and all that crap. This is one of those ‘told you so’ situations.
Few powers once obtained are given back without a great cost to those who seek to revoke them. But seriously, can’t you hear Nero fiddling?
Maybe he’s just not that smart. Wants to save face or who knows what?
But he may be smart and it’s all about misdirection. We don’t talk much about Halliburton anymore. Or about his friends in the oil industry and their profit paid by means of high gas prices that we pay. Or about his tax gifts to the super rich.
And we get distracted by his attacks on the Constitution and forget the trillions of dollars in debt and that our children and their children will have to pay dearly for.
Can you imagine how much money all his friends have accumulated during his tenure in the White House? Can you imagine how much more they will have accumulated until Bush leaves office?
Maybe it’s not about Civil Rights at all. Maybe it’s all about the money.
Not to be one of those guys that says everything is cyclical, but…
This is the top of a cyclical ebb and flow of power, with this being the high point, Nixon’s resignation being the low point, and Reagan’s reign being the medium.
It’s a safe bet that the next president, regardless of party, will begin to scale back power.
#5 Can you imagine how much money all his friends have accumulated during his tenure in the White House? Can you imagine how much more they will have accumulated until Bush leaves office?
More than enough to help the next Republican candidate into the White House.
America is and always will be a product of it’s electorate.
We now are more then ever a consumer society, dependent on celebrities, TV and computers to think for us.
All we care about is, does it look good, does it sound good.
The only class we care about is the upper class and corporate profits, we enact all kinds of laws to protect them.
On top of that corporations hire MBA’s and lawyers to trick/force consumers into crappy contracts and products. How often do you have to agree to a EULA before using hardware (except cell phones) and how often do you have to agree to a EULA before using software.
Which one is more complicated and which one is more buggy??
All Bush did was tickle the ears of a bunch of ignorant Americans and wah la we got the crap we are in now.
It’s no different then Americans spending beyond their means, using anything but their brains.
Don’t blame Bush for being elected, twice. I don’t see America electorate getting any smarter.
Smells like Pelosi Tuna!
All the libs should be ecstatic – just brings us closer to Empress Hillarius
#6….James Hill…..Normally I would agree with what you said. But when you look at the top tier of the possible candidates for the Presidency in 2008, you see strong personalities, that are not going to back off of using the powers left to them by Bush. They may be smarter in HOW they use them, but I don’t see them ignoring them.
Obama, and Edwards would be the least likely to use the powers, because they don’t have the experience or personal will to do it. But Guiliani, McCain, Clinton, Richardson, Gore, Kerry all have the balls to wield power, and won’t hesitate to do so.
Now, having said that, why are we treating an article from Slate as a serious piece of writing? Thats like taking Little Green Footballs as real political thought.
#12: Where it comes from changes the facts it’s presenting?
#12 – All of the people you mention are going to have to play along to get along… and “returning” power to the Congress will be an easy way to do that.
While the Democratic leadership has currently put the “impeachment” idea to rest, if Bush does try anything stupid, I don’t think it would take much to turn that thought around. Bush is too weak with both the Democrats and even Republicans to chance something too stupid.
Clinton went down in history for being only the second to be impeached. Most historians agree that it was a bum rap. Bush’s impeachment won’t be done so lightly or regarded as none of our business. No way will Bush gather much sympathy.
If, for example Bush invades Iran or Syria without Congressional approval, look for an impeachment. The top Republican Presidential contenders will be faced with a real dilemma. If they support Bush, they risk the wrath of a nation already at odds with Bush’s war plans. If they don’t support Bush, they risk the wrath of those in the Republican party that believe Bush can do no wrong.
#13….Uncle Dave…..when those *facts* are only presented with a certain viewpoint. from a certain angle, then they become questionable. It dosen’t matter to me if it’s a Liberal slant or a Right slant, it’s still a slant, and dosen’t leave the reader with a real grasp of any issue.
#14…James Hill…..while you may be right generally speaking. It’s going to be more of who is elected President and what party controls congress.
For instance, if Hillary wins and the Dems. keep control of both houses, she will defer to congress, mainly because they will be hostile to a lot of her agenda. If McCain wins and the Dems keep control of both houses, he may well use these extra-ordinary powers and congress may not hinder him much. If the Reps. win back 1 or both houses, Hillary will be better off than McCain when it comes to using the powers.
Remember, Clinton 1 had both houses under Dem. control with good margins, but couldn’t get his agenda passed. But when the Reps. took over, while they trashed him daily at every opprotunity, they also worked with him to pass a lot of his and their agenda.
The difference now is the war, and the powers Bush has assumed. Hillary is really not trusted by both wings of her party and I think they would be waiting in the wings like Brutus if she tried to use them(though she would probably have no real problem doing so). McCain is distrusted by the Conservatives(actually, just the religious right) and trusted by most Dems…..so he might not face a lot of hostility if he made a case for using some or all of the powers.
Any way you look at it, it will interesting to watch…..the power is there and we all know Washington hates a vacuem….so lets see who tries to fill it.
It really chaps my hiney every time those goofballs on FOX say that we liberals are against surveillance of terrorists.
I WANT the terrorists watched and caught.
I just want it done legally with some court oversight to avoid abuses. I’m old enough to remember J. Edgar Hoover.
#17 – With you on that. The problem with truning the executive branch enforcement bureaucrats loose on terrorists is that under someone like Bush, as with someone like Pedro’s hero (not) King Hugo, “terrorist” eventually comse to mean “political opponent.” Speaking of which, does the FBI still put you on a terrorist watch list if you mention the Bill of Rights in public?
#18 Geezer,
I strongly suspect that the Bush administration was spying on political opponents.
The reason I believe this is because FISA warrants are so ridiculously easy to get and almost never ever denied.
The only reason NOT to get a FISA warrant is if you are spying on someone who is obviously not a terrorist.
And the most likely person the Bush administration would want to spy on is their political opponents.
It’s Nixon and Hoover all over again.
>It’s Nixon and Hoover all over again.
and LBJ. and FDR. and Kennedy. and Clinton.
Mike, >>and LBJ. and FDR. and Kennedy. and Clinton.
Did those guys use the US government to illegally spy on political opponents? Not that’s I’ve heard of.
#22: At least as far as LBJ is concerned, it pretty well known he had J Edger Hoover wrapped around his finger and got him to send over IRS records on political friends and foes. Supposedly, he kept them under his bed. LBJ’s political clout throughout his career was his ability to know everything about everyone which gave him tremendous leverage.
yes our freedoms are being taken away and the next president wont undue anything. These people are all part of the same team, sorry to break that to you. We are entering a New World, say good bye to Kansas.