Only King George can protect us.

Everyone else in the world is a terrorist sympathizer who would ignore warnings of terrorist attacks!

Come on Kevin, just realize the obvious, these guys, the Bush team, are just freeking nuts and care not one iota about "traditional American values".

I think maybe it's the existence of Congress that they see as the problem.

Yes, if they would just dissolve congress they could get on with the business of exporting democracy. It's the ultimate outsourcing!

Constitutionally, each branch of the Federal government exists to hamper the power of the other branches to act -- we call it "checks and balances." Also any civil rights will, by definition, hamper the government's ability to act.

After the launch of Sputnik, it was perceived that we were falling behind in science, and our science education efforts were beefed up. Do you think that after the Bush administration and the political hegemony of the Republican party, there will be a similar perception about the teaching of civics (which we called "social studies" when I was in high school)? It's clear that almost no one in the Bush-Cheney regime or in the Republican Congress understands how our Federal government is intended to work, which I see as a massive educational failure.

Living in Houston means I had a front row seat to the rise of Alberto Gonzales. He and the whole Vinson and Elkins law firm are nothing except butt boys to the powerful.

Leon Jaworski, a past Houston legal heavy-weight is no doubt spinning in his grave.

Kevin,

Check out Jane Mayer's article on David Addington in this week's New Yorker. Some members of the Bush administration see Congress as an unacceptable threat to their notion of executive power. These are sociopaths who don't understand history so much.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060703fa_fact1

Can somebody please explain to me why the Bush administration takes the consistent position that the involvement of the Congress of the United States is something that ipso facto "hampers" our ability to deal with terrorists?

You are of course asking that question rhetorically.
Everything is about maintaining and expanding power. The "protecting the American people" refrain is the perfect canard.

Within the Bush administration, they can act of intel and do the right thing. As soon as they have to inform congressional democrats of what's going on, all the details will be leaked to the NY Times. SEE ALSO: Terrorist communication surveillance, terrorist financial tracking. THe moment he tells congress, a democrat calls up the NY Times, and the NY Times calls AQ. Consulting with congress equals telling AQ.

Can somebody please explain to me why the Bush administration takes the consistent position that the involvement of the Congress of the United States is something that ipso facto "hampers" our ability to deal with terrorists?

Because George W Bush is Commander in Chief in the War on Terrorism. In a war, the best person to make decisions on how best to win the war is the Commander in Chief.

Sieg heil!

One more Supreme Court seat and the GOP junta wins its fight against democracy and American values.

Four out of five Supremes in Hamdan want "justice" without courts, laws and due process.

This is from Clarence Thomas's dissent:
"...to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous..."

Because George W Bush is Commander in Chief in the War on Terrorism.

George W. Bush is the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, not you, not me, and not your momma. You want to take orders from the guy, why not sign up?

Quick question out of curiosity for Al, American Hawk, etc., if you feel inclined to answer:

What do you think have been Bush's most successful policy initiatives? Or more generally, what makes you so inclined to defend him, other than the fact that liberals can't stand him?

The only reason people put up with Bush is that his party is in the majority and they go along with him.

He could not survive serious opposition. If Dems win either house, it will be all over for him.

It's not success of policy but hatred of everything that fuels these guys. Cheney et all give validation to their overdeveloped fears and anxieties, and offer them a state-approved place to vent against gay Mexican flag-burning terrorist abortionists who read the New York Times.

Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz): you are so on target. It would be nice to see that happen. Very nice.

What is this "Congress" of which you speak?

There are many problems with Gonzalez' position relating to overreaching executive power, separation of powers, civil liberties, and other Consitutional concerns. These concerns are important, but I will leave them to others.

Rather, right now, I would like to make a practical, almost Machiavellian point.

Gonzalez and others seem to be stating that the Bush administration is a font of anti-terrorist expertise that is or may be hobbled by the courts, by Congress, by the New York Times, by the French, by United Nations, by the Pope, or other such miscreants. "We live in a post 9/11 world in which past techniques do not work and new techniques must be implements," they are saying. The "War on Terror" overrides these past constraints even though, in all likelihood, worldwide since 9/11 more people have died from tooth decay than from terrorist attacks.

Nevertheless, since 9/11, the Bush administration has failed to demonstrate any great success. Bin Laden remains uncaptured, intelligence failures lead us into Iraq, where guerilla tactics confound the military. We have turned the corner so many times we are now dizzy. Latin America, Russia, and Europe are drifting away.

To argue that we must support Bush in order to fight the terrorists ignores the fact that the terrorists are doing quite well despite Bush.

Fascism doesn't care much for legislative oversight, or any kind of oversight for that matter. Look at history - the rise in fascist regimes has been typically accompanied by a compliant and weak legislative body.

That's why these worms in Congress who think they are great patriots by bending down for George W. Bush to walk over their backs are really traitors to the American form of governance.

i can see why w might feel congress is untrustworthy. after all, both houses have republican majorities.

While we're at it, can someone explain the importance of putting these enemy combatants on trial, when it appears that almost everyone concedes that they can be held without trial for the duration of the war (as can prisoners of war)? Is it that Bush fears that he or a future president will have to concede at some point that the war has ended and then release individuals who are still a danger to the US? But wouldn't their continued danger mean the war hasn't ended? Or is it that we want to go beyond detention and execute the individuals? Is that what this is all about?

the best person to make decisions

I don't think most sane individuals would let GW order for them at a Denny's, much less make more important decisions, the Decider™ product rollout notwithstanding. To be fair, I would imagine he at one time had excellent information on the best places to order kegs, obtain other recreational substances, & so forth.

To address Kevin's question, though, it seems that any established military or law-enforcement processes that require actual evidence, oversight, accountability, assessments of facts, or what have you by definition "hampers" this administration. In other words, they can only "do their job" if free of any standards of performance or normal assurances of legitimacy. In the real world, of course, this inability to perform their duties within the boundaries of their job descriptions would be an indicator of gross incompetence... from them, though, it's pretty clearly a malicious effort to destroy any standards of civilized and legal conduct.

al, im curious. since bush is president, doesn't that make him commander in chief on the war on christmas? that's about as real as a "war" on a methodology used by sociopaths of all ideological stripes.

Do they think Congress is unpatriotic? Too weak minded? Untrustworthy?

What planet have you been living on the last five years -- don't you????

You should ask your grrlfriend Ann Althouse.

...the recently revealed secrets -- about the surveillance of telephone call patterns and financial transactions -- were not cases of government suppressing failures. These ongoing programs were successful, and revealing the secrets impaired the operation of very significant efforts in the war on terrorism.

Though she cites no evidence to back up her claims, she evidently agrees with the consigliere and complains that you don't link to her enough.

How thoroughly inconvenient to be the president of the United States of America. What country did he think he was president of? Libya?

It's darn hard work to be Pres when hampered by that quaint, tired old document the Constitution. It's a real thorn in the side of a resolute strutty strut strutter like me. Bring on them founding fathers!

ignores the fact that the terrorists are doing quite well despite Bush.

Despite? Or because of?

As soon as they have to inform congressional democrats of what's going on, all the details will be leaked to the NY Times

But Hawkie, you were OK with it when Rove, Libby and Cheney decided to leak for political gain.

Someone should write a book on Conservative War on Intelligent and Independent Thought.

Their attacks on the academia, the sciences, the press, any judges who do not share their worldview, together with the inordinate emphasis that the place on the role of religion (read Christianity) in the public life are all clearly designed to create a citizenery that cannot think for itself and is easily manipulated by appeals to emotions and fear, slogans, and propaganda.

Despite? Or because of?

Good point and worth pursuing.

Another way of putting my argument. The case for Mussolini was that "he made the trains run on time."

In the case of Bush, we have a fellow who actually is degrading the trains and disrupting their schedules.

a citizenery that cannot think for itself and is easily manipulated by appeals to emotions and fear, slogans, and propaganda.

You mean Fox News' core audience

The History Channel is running its Presidents series today, amazing how little things have changed with the spin doctors and mudslingers doing all they can to misdirect and mislead the public from the real issues at hand.

"Do they think Congress is unpatriotic? Too weak minded? Untrustworthy? What's the deal?"

MeThinks most of the democrats are. And a few republicans too.

"Do they think Congress is unpatriotic? Too weak minded? Untrustworthy? What's the deal?"

MeThinks most of the democrats are. And a few republicans too.

Kevin Drum should read PowerLineBlog if he wants solid information.

PowerLine already made the point that all Congress has to do is pass a statutue authorizing terrorists to be tried in military tribunals.

But Kevin, do you really want these terorists to be assigned ACLU attorneys?

Really?

So every infantry platoon should be accompanied by a congressional subcommittee? So the two prisoners I captured in 1950 can sue me because I didn't read them their rights? The Supremes have just passed the Take No Prisoners Act.
Fucking Feather Merchants!

I can so understand the need for an exceedingly strong executive authority as we navigate through these tough time in the war on terror, and it disheartens me to read so many poo-pooing the tools we need to find and nail these guys. One look at the terrorist militia we just rounded up in Miami should leave no doubt that the President desperately needs these law-abrogating powers. They were planning on forming an army for god's sake. AN ARMY. I have to clean my bedsheets often enough as it is. I need to know Bush isn't hampered by any of the useless idealism that our founding fathers carried with them if I'm going to be able to maintain some bladder control during the daytime hours.

We need to point out at every opportunity that it's Bush's disrespect for the law that's hampering our anti-terror efforts.

Walter E. Wallis, I suppose those two prisoners were tortured and are still rotting in a cell somewhere.

And remember....everyone at Gitmo is a terrorist because we say they are. Just don't let any lawyers get anywhere near them and ask questions cuz that would just play into the hands of terrorists.....who are who we say they are....

I don't fuck feathers, ewwwww. Typical dirty old man republican you are, Walter Wacker. Can't get your sex in normal fashion so you resort to bestiality. You're a sicko.

My! How the times have changed.

FDR went through the congress for all the changes he made, even when he wanted to pack the SCOTUS.

GWB wants to dismantle the SCOTUS and the Congress.

Kevin Drum should read PowerLineBlog if he wants solid information.

No need. Kevin has already read Mein Kampf and thrown it down the toilet.

Congress isn't the problem (hell Bush runs over them routinely), it is the Constitution.

Of course if we had applied our Constitutional standards to these prisoners, we probably have kicked a bunch of them loose long ago. Part of the irony of all the super secret national security mumbo jumbo, is that we can't very well turn around and release hundreds of prisoners who did nothing, without facing up to the consequences of admitting the whole misadventure was an illegal misguided political propaganda tool.

It's morning in America!

So the two prisoners I captured in 1950 can sue me because I didn't read them their rights?

You need to reread your talking points. The administration has specifically stated that the people being held at Guantonemo are not "prisoners of war".

Can somebody please explain to me why the Bush administration takes the consistent position that the involvement of the Congress of the United States is something that ipso facto "hampers" our ability to deal with terrorists?

Happy to.
To keep the illusion intact.

Bush is circled by the masses, the herd is the true security, not some jerk who says "bring it on!" while hiding behind armed guards.

I highly recommend to all to read a profile article recently posted on www.Truthdig.com about David Addington (history and relationship to Dick Cheney) to fully comprehend the necessity and importance of the recent decision handed down by the Supreme Court. It not only provides a great deal of insight into where the real influence is in this administration resides but also who directs policy and decision making in terms of Presidential directives, signing statements, and and policy strategy. Both Cheney and Addington came to the political forefront in the wake of diminished power of Presidential power in the Watergate scandal. Both hold the view of virtually unrestrained power of the Presidential office, especially in time of war or in dealing with internetional affairs. It is a rather chilling profile and detailed analysis of these two individuals considering the high offices they hold and thier influence on a very inexperienced and power hungry President. This article provides a lot of answers of how we got to where we are at currently and how much danger our democracy still resides. A must read.

The arguments against the SCOTUS decision are hysterical distortions. We can DETAIN enemy combatants without trial for the duration of the war. Why do we even need to try them? If we must try them, we can do so in military courts martial, like we did certain German soldiers at the end of WWII. Nothing the Supreme Court decided involves applying Miranda to suspected terrorists nor giving them a right to sue our soldiers for damages, nor are such things ever likely to happen.

We won the Cold War without completing abandoning the Constitution or concentrating all power into the president. Why are the nervous nellies on the right so pessimistic as to believe that we can't win this war unless we embrace tyranny?

I think the bigger deal is that all the prisoners at Gitmo can't simple be labeled terrorist without evidence.

I must be one those individuals that doesn't believe Bush is going to have an easy time rolling-over congress since SCOTUS's ruling has a strong bite to it. Simply sending Albert out to tell SCOTUS how horrible wrong the majority was on the ruling isn't wise for a administration already in trouble, particulary with all the torture news coming out of Gitmo. Bush has already said he would like to close Gitmo, and his torture policy isn't going to help in the run-up to try and make Gitmo legal. Many strong conservative types don't like that Bush is devoid of any understanding of the need for evidence before declaring someone gulity and a terrorist.

Albert skip the part where Bush said he would try to comply with the court, but I know that some lawyers in the DoJ aren't going see it Bushie's way since they haven't seen alot of things theadministrations way.

NOPE, this coming bill is going to be very ugly. Lets hope Dana Priest has a field day reminding Americans how awful things are at Gitmo. Bush certainly pick a bad time to start attacking the press. Bush burned too may bridges, made too many enemies.

The President is not only the head of the Executive branch; he's Commander in Chief. AFAIK in all past wars, the CiC made military decisions without ceding any power the courts. Congress's only role was to decide how much money to allocate. In particular, no past CiC was required to get input from Congress or the courts when making decisions regarding POWs.

Adding insult to injury, not only is Bush being uniquely forced to cede some Presidential power, he's being blasted for acting just like every other wartime President.

Dear Ex-Liberal:

You obviously have heard of the part of the US Constitution that says the President is "commander in chief" of military forces. But you seem to have missed this part:

Article I

"The Congress shall have the power ...

Section 8

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and MAKE RULES CONCERNING CAPTURES ON LAND AND WATER;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To MAKE RULES FOR the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

In addition, the SCOTUS limited Lincoln's attempt to use military court martials of citizens and disallowed Truman's attempt to nationalize the steel industry in the Korean War. And wasn't the Cold War a real war? Because Congress enacted FISA -- which prohibits what the NSA is now doing -- during the Cold War.

Publius shows exactly how Dems need to handle the Republicans on C-Span, and Publius shows word per word how to put it to public about those torture loving, no evidence needing Repugs. More Dem congress members need to read blogs since they never seem to come up with anything on their own.

RiMac - I stand corrected.

It's clear that almost no one in the Bush-Cheney regime or in the Republican Congress understands how our Federal government is intended to work, which I see as a massive educational failure.
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald

you give them too little credit. they understand how it's *intended* to work, they just don't like it much. (some wingers don't want the the federal govt. to work at all, but that's another argument.)

your pal,
blake

After the war, Walter Wallis took them home where he repeatedly raped them. After they died he just skull fucked their eye sockets until that started cutting up his willie wonka.

Now the skulls just fill out the bra of the wife he never had.

Social conservatives don't trust anyone but themselves. That's why they hate society.

PowerLineBlog has an interesting post about Peter Beinart.

Well, jerry's comment was disgusting enough to kill the discussion, I guess. Ick.

I think that the WH "terrorist threat" discussion actually isn't rational - in the sense that their "national defense" argument is now really a CYA cover up for all manner of offenses.

So Administration rebuttals seem non-sensical once they are examined vs the real world.

Fucktards like AH and Al just don't fucking get it.

The terrists have already won.

Thanks to the idiotboy W and his minions.

Why are the nervous nellies on the right so pessimistic as to believe that we can't win this war unless we embrace tyranny?

excellent question

Social conservatives don't trust anyone but themselves. That's why they hate society.

Marxism comunism, socialism are, to me, about the same..enslave the masses so they can be 'free'

Promises Promises Promises

"What this decision has done is, it's hampered our ability to move forward with a tool which we had hoped would be available to the president of the United States in dealing with terrorists,"

The only tool being used in the Oval Office is the president.

The administration is extremely foolish. Since they were appointed by the Supreme Court the naked attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court delegitimizes them. Foolish. Foolish.

They do not need and have never needed the authorities they are claiming. They are a dangerous lot. The purpose of defending the government is to honor its constitution not to shred it.

If they were smart they would shut up and move on. A floor debate in Congress will only show the republicans to be dangerously irresponsible. The majority of the country is against this war and its methods. The American public has had enough.

No whipped up poll number or propagnada meme is going to reverset that. Worse the disaster card, give another of any sort will work against them. Katrina used up the last of their credibility.

"But Kevin, do you really want these terorists to be assigned ACLU attorneys?"

First off, they aren't really terrorists unless convicted -- we're picking up lots of guys in random sweeps, and that is common knowledge. Secondly, the ACLU is not an illegal organization, whether you like it or not. And thirdly, it is primarily concerned with issues related to free speech. (They've even defended your friends in the KKK.) But the ACLU is not likely to be defending anyone in a secret military tribunal.

So what's your point, exactly, except that you have no respect for our legal system?

Agree your point of view.

我向大家推荐:叉车租赁 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的叉车租赁,丰富叉车租赁行业资讯助您成交。中国 压滤机 网，打造压滤机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球压滤机品牌公司及产品展示。超声波清洗机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的超声波清洗机,丰富超声波清洗机行业资讯助您成交。北京 吸塑机/高频机 厂向广大客户提供吸塑机/高频机产品及吸塑机/高频机服务。您想要了解 离心机 吗？请到中国离心机网来寻找离心机。清洗机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的清洗机,丰富清洗机行业资讯助您成交。北京 粉碎机 厂向广大客户提供粉碎机产品及粉碎机服务。上海 工程机械 公司专业生产工程机械产品，欢迎选择工程机械。您想要了解 挖机/挖土机 吗？请到中国挖机/挖土机网来寻找挖机/挖土机。北京 露点仪 厂向广大客户提供露点仪产品及露点仪服务。传动机械 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的传动机械,丰富传动机械行业资讯助您成交。北京 减速机 厂向广大客户提供减速机产品及减速机服务。北京 汽车吊 厂向广大客户提供汽车吊产品及汽车吊服务。上海 挖掘机 公司专业生产挖掘机产品，欢迎选择挖掘机。压路机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的压路机,丰富压路机行业资讯助您成交。中国 除湿机 网，打造除湿机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球除湿机品牌公司及产品展示。上海 二手挖掘机 公司专业生产二手挖掘机产品，欢迎选择二手挖掘机。二手挖掘机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的二手挖掘机,丰富二手挖掘机行业资讯助您成交。您想要了解 减速机 吗？请到中国减速机网来寻找减速机。北京 升降机 厂向广大客户提供升降机产品及升降机服务。北京 太越减速机 厂向广大客户提供太越减速机产品及太越减速机服务。北京 二手挖掘机 厂向广大客户提供二手挖掘机产品及二手挖掘机服务。上海 鹤壁通用机械厂 公司专业生产鹤壁通用机械厂产品，欢迎选择鹤壁通用机械厂。北京 仓壁振动器 厂向广大客户提供仓壁振动器产品及仓壁振动器服务。北京 防闭塞装置 厂向广大客户提供防闭塞装置产品及防闭塞装置服务。电磁振动给料机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的电磁振动给料机,丰富电磁振动给料机行业资讯助您成交。要想寻找离心机信息请访问 离心机 网，各种离心机应有尽有。您想要了解 离心机 吗？请到中国离心机网来寻找离心机。减速机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的减速机,丰富减速机行业资讯助您成交。北京 动平衡机 厂向广大客户提供动平衡机产品及动平衡机服务。北京 喷码机 厂向广大客户提供喷码机产品及喷码机服务。要想寻找二手挖掘机信息请访问 二手挖掘机 网，各种二手挖掘机应有尽有。要想寻找升降机信息请访问 升降机 网，各种升降机应有尽有。北京 缠绕机/包装机械 厂向广大客户提供缠绕机/包装机械产品及缠绕机/包装机械服务。要想寻找制药机械信息请访问 制药机械 网，各种制药机械应有尽有。北京 挖掘机 厂向广大客户提供挖掘机产品及挖掘机服务。二手挖掘机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的二手挖掘机,丰富二手挖掘机行业资讯助您成交。您想要了解 离心机 吗？请到中国离心机网来寻找离心机。北京 减速机 厂向广大客户提供减速机产品及减速机服务。北京 挖掘机 厂向广大客户提供挖掘机产品及挖掘机服务。磁选机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的磁选机,丰富磁选机行业资讯助您成交。北京 离心机 厂向广大客户提供离心机产品及离心机服务。北京 橡胶机械 厂向广大客户提供橡胶机械产品及橡胶机械服务。北京 标记机/打标机 厂向广大客户提供标记机/打标机产品及标记机/打标机服务。中国 |蜗轮减速机/摆线减速机 网，打造|蜗轮减速机/摆线减速机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球|蜗轮减速机/摆线减速机品牌公司及产品展示。中国 挖掘机 网，打造挖掘机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球挖掘机品牌公司及产品展示。您想要了解 登车桥 吗？请到中国登车桥网来寻找登车桥。中国 升降平台 网，打造升降平台领域专业搜索平台，提供全球升降平台品牌公司及产品展示。您想要了解 铝合金升降台 吗？请到中国铝合金升降台网来寻找铝合金升降台。液压升降机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的液压升降机,丰富液压升降机行业资讯助您成交。中国 真空吸盘 网，打造真空吸盘领域专业搜索平台，提供全球真空吸盘品牌公司及产品展示。北京 激光切割机 厂向广大客户提供激光切割机产品及激光切割机服务。上海 叉车 公司专业生产叉车产品，欢迎选择叉车。

BTW: Can someone define national security for me? While you are at it, can you explain how any of these terrorist are a serious threat to our national security? I can see them as a threat to the lives of a remarkably small per cent of the American public. I can see them as a threat to a tiny bit of American property. Where do they remotely have a chance to be a threat to America the country? Except of course by getting a bunch of people who are afraid of the world at large to give up all the rights that have been so hard won, to endorse the actions of the likes of the current administration.

Either the usual crowd has taken on new monikers or some new people have crept in to this Comments area - some welcome and some, well....

In any case, viva le` difference

Bushburner:

I agree, al-Qaeda is a low-level, low tech threat and one that needs to be dealt with as a criminal matter, not a military or "national security" matter. Had the Republican Congress acted on the recommendations of the Gore Commission in 1997, 9-11 would never have happened. When Bush compares the current situation to WWII, he demonstrates his ignorance of history and his grotesquely inflated ego in one fell swoop. Al-Qaeda is not a threat to the American way of life or a justification for trampling the Bill of Rights. Bush is wrong and history will prove that once and for all....

You forget the CEO mentality........power is kept to a minimum (tight circle) therefore you don't have to ask anyone for permission!

Please people... stop playing around with the administrations tools! They need those tools to use on terrorists! If you take away their tools then the terrorists win!

Al responds with "Because George W Bush is Commander in Chief in the War on Terrorism. In a war, the best person to make decisions on how best to win the war is the Commander in Chief"

Bush?

I'm going to turn in now. Al has given me the best laugh of the day.

sparrow:

Perhaps after you've had a chance to sleep on it, you can tell the rest of the class who you think the U.S. Constitution grants war powers as Commander in Chief and/or who is the best person to make decisions on how best to win the war if NOT the Commander in Chief?

Also, going back a bit in our history, do you think President John Adams was Commander in Chief during the Quasi-War with France, or would you had rather given that power to Benjamin Bache's newspaper critical at the time, the Aurora?

The link is not working -- here it is again -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War

Students of history will recall that Octavian, later named Augustus, ended every speech with a riff on Cato's "Carthago delenda est," "The Ides of March changed everything!" and people cheered wildly. As Tacitus later observed "So he grew greater by degrees while he concentrated in himself the functions of the senate, the magistrates, and the laws," inaugurating one of the world's most successful military dictatorships. It's often been observed that our history's second George III (Washington, Bush-1, Bush-2) ain't no Augustus (well, a C+ Augustus, but I wouldn't give him better than a D). Our best hope is that, since he's failed at everything else in his life, he'll turn out to be, not an Augustus, but a Cataline. Who'll be his Cicero?

...."What this decision has done is, it's hampered our ability to move forward with a tool which we had hoped would be available to the president of the United States in dealing with terrorists," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told CNN.

"But, haha, it turned out to be unconstitutional and likely a war crime, so heh, never mind, I guess. We'll just have to try to figure out a way around that," Gonzales added.

LOL, Brian -- you do realize that Bush's term ends (at the outside) on January 20, 2009, right? Some "dictatorship".

Back to the thread topic -- separation of war powers:

1) Congress -- power to declare war and appropriate monies (Art. I, Sec. 8).

2) President -- Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States (Art. II, Sec. 2).

See Yoo, John C., "War and the Constitutional Text". University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 4, Fall 2002

the U.S. Constitution grants war powers as Commander in Chief

Must be the Wingnut Alternate-Reality Constitution, because while there's a clause (Article II, Section 2) about the POTUS being CiC in mine (with no elaboration on specific duties therein), here's part of what Article I, Section 8 has to say about the legislative branch:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Not that we really expect the current administration to pay much attention what is, I suppose, "just a goddamned piece or paper," but people who voluntarily bring it up really should at least read it.

"Agree your point of view."

What a great touch: agreeing our point of view (that fooled us, alright) before unloading a full page of Chinese characters, advertising Viagra or whatever the hell is going on there. Very clever.

Their ability to aprehend terrorists has not been interferred with. And they were not "dealing with" the ones they had caught anyway.

They have to keep it simple for the stupid...therefore using and reusing the catch phrases that allow their "base" to repeat and repeat with no regard for facts or accuracy. Isn't it sad that it works so well?

Paris Hilton would be a better AG.

Latts:

Why do you think I haven't read it, since I cited the exact Articles and Sections? Of course Congress has every one of those war powers -- I never said they didn't -- the President has every other war power. Get it?

Mr. Kriz, from your very link: "In October of 1996, at the request of President Clinton, Congress appropriated over $400 million in direct accord with the commission's recommendations".

"...implementation has begun on virtually all of the recommendations."

Kriz, do you even read all of your links or just the part where it says your messiah Clinton?Gore were infallible?

Stare Decisis people. Remember this? Of course you do, because it is what you pull out of your ass every time Roe v Wade is brought back to the public debate. In fact because of stare decisis, you would like Roe v Wade to be permanent. Well guess what, stare decisis also applies in the case of military tribunals. So whats good for the goose........ right? I mean you don't want to be hypocritical do you?

Living in a Nation of laws and not men does hamper the President a bit

If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier... [Bush chuckles, audience laughs] ...just so long as I'm the dictator [more laughter]. - George W. Bush December 2000

A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it. - George W. Bush July 26, 2001

It's not a dictatorship in Washington, but I tried to make it one in that instance.
[Describing his executive order making faith-based groups eligible for federal subsidies, New Orleans, Louisiana, Jan. 15, 2004]

BUT

"We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace." - George W. Bush, September 21, 2004

Please, Catch22, keep it up right through to the election -- as I pointed out to Brian -- you do realize that Bush's term ends (at the outside) on January 20, 2009, right? Most right-thinking Americans will see right through you.

Leave it to the left to do exactly what they blame others of, taking quotes out of context. Also, if you had any common sense, you'd realize those quotes were very tongue-in-cheek. But what am I thinking, the left does not have common sense nor a sense of humor.

How's this one?

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Billy Clinton, most any year.

Doug:
I certainly do "get it." Congress has the power "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water,” and to “define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations.” Which is why Congress has the authority to authorize and control the rules governing the trial of a captured combantant like Hamdan for offenses against the law of nations. In 1866, when disallowing courts martial of US citizens, the SCOTUS stated: "Congress cannot direct the conduct of campaigns, nor can the President, or any commander under him, without the sanction of Congress, institute tribunals for the trial and punishment of offences, either of soldiers or civilians, unless in cases of a controlling necessity, which justifies what it compels, or at least insures acts of indemnity from the justice of the legislature.” 4 Wall., at 139–140. You can argue about what "controlling necessity" means, but the SCOTUS 140 years ago that, notwithstanding the Commmander-in-Chief powers, the Constitution ordinarily requires Congress to authorize tribunals to try individuals for crimes in war. In WWII, in Ex Parte Quirin, the Court upheld military courts martial of German sabateurs, but the Court there found that Congress had authorized the commissions. Even in Ex Parte Quirin, the Court asks whether the commissions the President created complied with the authorization Congress gave. They said yes. In Hamden, the Court asks the same question of the wholly different and novel procedures Bush created and answered no. The consistent position in all of these cases is that the President's power to create these military commissions is limited to what Congress authorizes.

Finally, read the last sentence of footnote 23 of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: "Whether or not the President has independent power, absent congressional authorization, to convene military commissions, he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 637 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ARGUE OTHERWISE."

I guess we should be happy that the left is actually willing to hold jihadists accountable in any court of law.

Does this mean that they have abandoned their views that the Afghan men captured on the battlefield were freedom fighters?

Jay: Just who is this "left" you speak of? I have no doubt there exist some Americans who question the war in Afghanistan (there are some Americans who believe just about anything), but I haven't personally met any of them, nor read them, even though I talk to and read plenty of people who questioned from day one the war in Iraq. Indeed, there seems to be a kind of Afghan amnesia going around, in which Republicans: (a) forget that Democratic politicians and Democratic voters overwhelmingly supported the use of military action against the organization that attacked us on 9/11 and those who harbored it and (b) forget that the war in Iraq is not the same thing. So much of the Republican rhetoric about Iraq would, in my mind, be more or less correct if only it were being said about Afghanistan, but is entirely false when said about Iraq. It is as if the Republicans were disappointed to find that Democrats were enthusiastic to use the military to crush our real enemies, so after Afghanistan they created a false enemy to ensure that Democrats would be divided about military action.

I guess we should be happy that the left is actually willing to hold jihadists accountable in any court of law.

As opposed to the right wing view that they should be tossed in a cell forever with no assessment made as to whether the charges aginst them are supported by fact, given no opportunity to address these charges, tortured on occasion, held personally responsible for heinous acts commmited by others, and denied the basic rights they have under the Geneva convention that we are signatories to?

That's a pretty low threshhold.

OK RiMac, a little sarcasm there, don't get your panties in such a bunch.

However, there are many on the "far" left that don't endorse military actions under any conditions and the Democrat party panders far too often to them, which tends to label liberals as soft. Unless and until the Democrats stop pandering to the far left fringe, election victories will continue to elude them.

Yeah, that's the right wing view. No left spin there.

Moron.

Kevin asks, Can somebody please explain to me why the Bush administration takes the consistent position that the involvement of the Congress of the United States is something that ipso facto "hampers" our ability to deal with terrorists? Do they think Congress is unpatriotic? Too weak minded? Untrustworthy? What's the deal?

The "deal", Kevin, is that you are less than clueless about the goings on in our government. Congress passed and the President signed into law the necessary tools to deal with the detainees. Stevens "misunderstands", "regularly constituted -- among a great many other things, including the explicit denial of SC jurisdiction.

So the "deal", Kevin, is that Congress will quickly repass nearly identical legislation and will foreclose the SC from getting involved again.

And you Demwits will get a chance once again to show us all how ineffectual and dumb you are with respect to the defense of this nation.

And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

"And you wonder why I think you're a moron?"

Uh, no, Norman. Nobody wonders, because nobody gives a flying fuck what you think.

I wonder.

"I wonder."

Like I said, "Nobody" wonders.

RiMac:

As was pointed out, "rules" will be passed in Congress and hopefully 1 or 2 of those Justices voting in favor on the terrorists get replaced on the Court.

Joel:

Just like unborn children are "nobodies" too, right?

And, before that, Jews.

Before that, grown women and born children.

Or African slaves and non-landowners.

Keep it up, Dougie. Your prattling non sequiturs only serve to make my point.

Tracing back historical "nobodies" is in direct response to your post -- not prattling non sequiturs at all, Joel -- as I recall, even the greatest American liberal Thomas Jefferson, owned "nobodies" (but, rumor is, actually did give a flying fuck with at least one such "nobody").

Of course Congress has every one of those war powers -- I never said they didn't -- the President has every other war power. Get it?

I get that Republicans treat the Constitution the way defense attorneys with dead-guilty clients treat the laws that apply & the trial process-- it's to be expanded (description of presidential powers) when doing so will accrue more power to your petty despots, and reduced to nothing when it inconveniently requires fair play or considerations of individual liberty (i.e., the Bill of Rights, except the Second Amendment). It's not surprising that you guys have religious fundamentalists in your camp, since none of you can analyze texts beyond the level of a sixth grade book report ("and then this happened, and... uh, I think that means that they didn't like such-and-such, because later on it said that...").

Basically, it's just something for you guys to manipulate to serve your immediate interests-- very un-American behavior, but that no longer surprises me.

Were you against Congress infringing on clear Executive war powers after Vietnam / Watergate as "manipulat[ing] to serve your immediate interests-- very un-American behavior" indeed.

Oh, and Doug, you can quit pretending that modern "conservatives" have any real claim on expanding liberty to slaves, Jews, etc.-- history records your side as being wrong on those questions (and don't give me the Civil War party identifications; they've completely flipped at this point, as the electoral maps show). This is another one of those little rhetorical tricks you guys like to play-- taking the broadening of rights that liberals can rightly claim credit for demanding and trying to pretend that we're the ones betraying those same principles conservatives tried to ignore or destroy for decades on end.

Oh, yeah, I forgot that when Republicans wage war it's a great & noble thing, and Democrats merely "wag the dog," right?

Doug, you're completely full of shit & are unworthy of engagement. And yes, un-American: devoid of principles and afraid of accountability.

Bush certainly isn't the first CIC to be challenged in war. When Roosevelt interned the Japanese one of them sued and took it to SCOTUS. They decided in Roosevelt's favor.

latts:

Great "liberals" like Thomas Jefferson can rightly claim credit for demanding an end to slavery in America?

P.S. -- Real Democrats like FDR and Truman were NOT merely "wagging the dog" -- too bad your party has no more Real Democrats left.

Space Shuttle launch delayed until July 4th now.

latts: don't take it personal. Some of these "liberal bashers" have spent a lot of time opposing liberal initiatives which expanded basic American rights to more and people. And their primary excuse till this very day has been that they are turned off by the hypocrisy of some liberal somewhere.

Can somebody please explain to me why the Bush administration takes the consistent position that the involvement of the Congress of the United States is something that ipso facto "hampers" our ability to deal with terrorists?

Its not Congressional involvement, per se, but anything that prevents the President from acting with exclusive and unreviewable authority.

Gee, this is a tough one.

1. Fight the war on terrorism and give up the rule of law.

Or

2. Fight the war on terrorism and maintain the rule of law.

Why does w have such a hard time with this?

Terrorist and most Americans just haven't realized yet that they have the same enemy - the rich.

IF we put a Mexican in charge of the rule of law - we will have a banana republic.

Of COURSE Gonzales believes in torture, suspension of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

HE'S A MEXICAN FOR CHRIST SAKES>>>> That is how they govern!!!

This is a no brainer.... I live in the Southwest and I can tell you -- Latinos don't EXPECT justice - they are the perfect grass eaters for the fascists of my old GOP.

Oh Christ carol, please go somewhere else and spout off about Jews, Mexicans, and whatever other group of individuals you think is ruining the world today.

You batty old biddy.

Carol makes a VALID point. Latinos do not EXPECT democracy or liberty.

Gonzales behaves like a banana republican.

There are differences between cultures and Latinos make lousy democrats because they are not accustomed to participating. They are accustomed to thugs like Gonzales.

and as for her comment on jews - well, I think American Jews are treasonous.

they should be excluded from the process because they are not American citizens FIRST.

does that make me a nazi?

I think Israelis are the neo nazis of our time.

As far as I can tell, congress is a shabby little collection of subnormal hicks, racists exterminators, NASCAR fans, etc. They get exactly the respect they desrve.

Great job http://four-point-by-sheraton.m888.org four point by sheraton http://basement-finishing-idea.m888.org basement finishing idea http://mariah-carey-pic.m888.org mariah carey pic http://gmbl-manassas-va.m888.org gmbl manassas va http://ariat-boot.m888.org ariat boot http://50th-anniversary-invitation.m888.org 50th anniversary invitation http://bol-bol-vollenhovense-vollenhover.m888.org bol bol vollenhovense vollenhover http://chicken-pasta-recipe.m888.org chicken pasta recipe http://ranch,malabu-rock-saddle.m888.org ranch,malabu rock saddle http://mandy-moore-picture.m888.org mandy moore picture