Wartime powers in a state of endless war?

This is an excellent article that asks the question of whether a "war on terror" justifies giving the President wartime powers. It's an insightful question.



by Kevin Drum (Political Animal) at the Washington Monthly

You can read the entire article here:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007818.php

This war on terror is a red herring......there is no such thing as a world wide terror network of any kind. That's not to say there are no terrorists, but al Quaeda is a construct of this government in order to justify the cold war rhetoric.

Al Qaeda does exist.

Next you'll be telling us that Al Jazeera isn't real, either.. in fact, everyone named "Al" is just a figment of our imagination. Al Capone? A fictional character! Really!

level? How do you know Al Qaeda is as strong as it used to be? Can you see for yourself? No. You rely on master to tell you when your in danger. Fuck Al Qaeda, we're all gonna die some day. Best not live our lives in fear. As for the repubs, I think they're sooo afraid of dying, because deep down, they know they are going to hell.

to call al Qaeda.

There is no worldwide network of any kind.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660391.stm

Data base? Things that may one go hmmmmmm......

It's also sometimes translated as "The Foundation"

so, the RW fundies could also be using it as a take off on a Luther-like "re-formation," i.e., The Church's One Foundation....is JC, her Lord" but ascribe it to the dark side of the Infidel.

Either way, evil will always exist in the hearts of men/women -- each life story is really about this battle -- but why anyone, i.e. *shrub would want it to be a continous national witchhunt for black hats of the world is obsessively xenophobic and maniacal and turns that Leader into exactly that which he seeks to root out. Just my $0.02 - IMHO-he's certifiable to be so used -- I mean, what possible reward would be so worth the destruction of the American Constitutional liberties that provided this man's family privileged education and wealth for generations?

(ancient one). Seems to apply in this case.

That sums it up. Period. I have been discussing with Mr. Zola all day today on what I should be freeway blogging. That proverb sums it all up.

Powerful.

"Mr President, your powers are restricted, you can't do that! Unless there's a war!"

"Then I'll just start a war!"

" ok then!, that's better!, start a war and then do what you like."

Or, at least as long as the United States exists ("Terror" as a problem will exist for as long as human-kind exists in this unevolved or unenlightened state).

Like it had neeeever existed in the world before. But now we have to submit to dictatorship because "there's terrah over here! terrah over there!"

Eeeee! Ayeee! Eeee! Ayeee! Ohhhh!

With a terra-ist, here!

And a terra-ist, there!

Here a terra-ist, there a terra-ist!

Everywhere a terra-ist!

n/t

I'm just curious because when Gonzalez and Chertoff gave the press conference this morning, they both were commenting that the provisions that are being questioned are ones that are really allowed by law anyway, as they were passed sometime ago. I sure would like some more info about those statements.

If law enforcement could do these things anyway, why were they put into the law? Why was it considered necessary to put provisions into the law that were already law? If these provisions appear to be unconstitutional, then why have those other laws, authorizing these things not been challenged?

about declaring oneself a wartime president, and then claiming that one has special powers during that time. One problem: a war against terrorism is like a war against air. When the hell will we know when it's done?

not what lawmakers originally had in mind when they granted special Presidential powers in wartime.

This is a response I gave to a wingnut over at where I have a blog on brainshrub.com.

I wrote a piece about the wiretap at:

www.brainshrub.com/president-wiretap (which I think you'll also like)

He responded in typical wingnut rhetoric about Bush being a "war time President" etc. and the Constitution granting Bush magical unenumerated powers and I took his nonsense apart piece by piece:

Subject: He is decidedly NOT doing his job.
Author: Doug De Clue
Date: Mon, 12/19/2005 - 4:47pm



PH: I've noticed that Liberals are getting all uppity from the President's admission that he's doing his job.

Response: First off, BUSH is the one who is getting "uppity" with our Constitution, not us. He forgets that he is "We the People's" servant and he is paid by OUR taxdollars. He works for us. We don't work for him. He is responsible to US. We aren't responsible to him.

His job is clearly defined - to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Go read his oath of office and the Second Article of the Constitution which defines exactly WHAT his job is. If you (and Mr. Bush) were a true conservative you would believe in strict constructionism and a narrow construing of the laws. You don't however. You want expansive and unaccountable dictatorial police powers that are anything but "conservative".

Nowhere does the Constitution give the President any special powers to usurp the requirement for a warrant and nowhere does it charge him with protecting the people.

It definitely does charge him with protecting the Constitution however - and he is violating that by violating our Fourth Amendment rights and by ignoring the separation of powers - ignoring the laws as passed by Congress and the requirement to seek a JUDGE's not a TERRORIST's approval per those laws.

PH: Now that the Iraqis have had their elections, and a democracy has been established, the radical liberals need another issue.

Response: Don't make me laugh. How many elections will it take to establish "democracy" in Iraq? If we've established a "democracy" in Iraq, then like Shane in the movie, our work is finished there and it's time to move on. Somehow I doubt we've really established anything but enemies there however.

We've heard this "democracy" claim every time and every time it hasn't been true. And no we don't need another issue but Bush gave us one.

Bush GAVE us this warrant issue on a silver platter like the idiot he is and it is far more important than Iraq anyways. Ultimately, Bush will be impeached and go to jail over this and he CONFESSED to it on national TV. I mean how dumb do you have to be to confess on TV?

PH: Presidents have to make tough decitions in war-time,

Response: War? What war? We are legally NOT at war. There has been no declaration of war which is a constitutional REQUIREMENT for this to be "war-time". Sorry but you are wrong again. The last declaration of war that was ever issued was on December 8th, 1941. So Bush ISN'T a "war-time" President -that's just a Republican lie.

And as I've pointed out in my previous post on the plane crash, Bush very often FAILS to make "tough decisions" because he's too busy being on vacation in Crawford Texas and when he does make decisions, he makes very bad ones.

PH: and Bush has shown that he's willing to do what it takes to protest the homland from Islamofacists.

Response: Actually he has totally failed to do what it takes. Osama and Al Qaeda are still at large, no thanks to Mr. Bush and his diversion from Afghanistan to Iraq, and terrorism has been on the rise since 2001 according to the State Department's own numbers - go look it up - and Bush's usurpations of the Constitution have done nothing to stop it and in fact will make the situation worse.

PH: If sKerry had managed to be president, he probably would have invited Osama Bin Ladin to dinner instead of tapping his phone.

If a warrant-less wiretap means that it will save Americans from another 9/11, I welcome it.

Response:

There is NO argument to be made for "If a warrant-less wiretap" because Congress already allowed for the emergency case when they wrote the law.

There IS NO "NECESSITY" defense to justify not following the FISA law. If time is an issue (the so-called "ticking bomb" scenario) then he can TOTALLY WITHIN the FISA law go 72 hours without requiring a judge's approval but ultimately he MUST ask a judge after 72 hours for a warrant because he is the PRESIDENT not the KING.

Even the King of England had to get a warrant from a Magistrate ever since the days of the Magna Carta in the 13th Century. Is this the kind of "democracy" you want to give us? No Constitution, no separation of powers, no Bill of Rights, no right to a judge, a jury or a trial? No Magna Carta for that matter? Just how many centuries into the dark ages would you like Mr. Bush to take us anyways?

How can Bush protect "democracy" by destroying it? He can't!

PH: Criminals are given to much slack anyhow.

Response: That might sound real good and make you feel real tough and "patriotic" until el Presidente-por-vida Bush sends a black car for PATRIOTHEART in the middle of the night to take him for a one way ride.

I thought YOU were the conservative Republican. Why is it that it is I who is the one arguing the conservative point of view - the Jeffersonian maxim - "that government which governs least governs best" while you are the one who wants to expand governmental powers and create a police state like in Nazi Germany, East Germany, or the Soviet Union?

The truth is that the Republican party is morally and ethically bankrupt at this point and they are so desperate that they are willing create a fascist dicatorship in order to maintain their slipping grip on power.

You may have never heard of Sir Thomas More and his battle against King Henry VIII of England but I leave you to ponder the following quote from the Robert Bolt play, "A Man For All Seasons":

"Rich: (Moves swiftly to exit; turns) I would be steadfast!

More: Richard, you couldn't answer for yourself even so far as tonight. (RICH exits. All watch him; the others turn to More, their faces alert)

Roper: Arrest him.

Alice: Yes!

More: For what?

Alice: He's dangerous!

Roper: For libel; he's a spy.

Alice: He is! Arrest him!

Margaret: Father, that man's bad.

More: There is no law against that.

Roper: There is! God's law!

More: Then God can arrest him.

Roper: Sophistication upon sophistication.

More: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal.

Roper: Then you set man's law above God's!

More: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact - I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God....

Alice: While you talk, he's gone!

More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."

Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

angle, which is the RW mantra when it comes to just about anything else, but in this case they seem to be saying it does not apply. Great catch on that!

The Executive power mentioned in Article II Section 1, only means the power to execute the laws that have been passed by Congress nothing more. The President has NO powers not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Every branch has powers which are specifically enumerated in the document and all powers that are not enumerated to the Government are reserved to the People, not the government as explicitly stated in the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution:

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In fact you need to call any "conservative" that makes the argument that the President has "magic" unenumerated powers on this because they are the ones who claim to be for small government and states rights. Now they are changing their tune because George has gone and confessed to a felony.

The enumerated powers of the President are listed in Article 2 section 2 as follows:
"Sect. 2. The President shall be 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; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other offices of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next session."

Nowhere in Article 2 Section 2 does it grant the President the magical power to ignore the separation of powers or the 4th Amendment or the right to break or ignore the law (which would be a violation of the separation of powers as well as illegal.) In fact it is the President's duty to enforce and execute the law, hence the title Chief Executive.

If he could violate the 4th Amendment on the basis he claims, then why not any other provision of the Constitution, say the 22nd Amendment limiting him to 2 terms, or the term of office listed in Article 2. Why bother with a Constitution at all?

These enumerated Executive powers are relatively weak compared to those granted to Congress which authored the Constitution. The Legislative body granted itself far more extensive powers and if you have read the Federalist papers (particularly #69,#70) you would know that they were very much afraid of the President becoming a King and made comparisons in Federalist #69, and #70 as to how the President was intended to be much weaker than a King.

This defense he's putting up is the "magic genie" defense. You know you buy the lamp at the bazaar and take it home. You rub the lamp and a genie pops out and grants you three wishes. Well George Bush is trying to use the third wish to ask for a thousand more wishes.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

That's main reason it will ultimately be unwinnable.

Wars must have concrete enemies and therefore concrete objectives.

The War on Terror is as unwinnable as the War on Drugs.

It needs to be changed to a war on Al Qaeda and affiliated organizations as a first step.

Doug D.

So as long as people cheat on their spouses, we shall be in a state of WAR!!!!! With all the profiteering opportunities that come with a WAAAARRRR!!!!

If we're going to declare war on a behavior let's declare War on unchecked greed.

Thus giving ObL, the real enemy, a recruiting tool like no other, and thereby perpetuating the "War on Terror," ourselves. Jeez, Bush is hopeless.

They declare a war that has no fixed enemy and can NEVER be won--so it will go on forever. Nobody even asks when this state of undeclared emergency will be over.

They declare that they have unlimited unaccountable powers--they won't even tell you what those are, or what new things they're doing that would be plainly unConstitutional if discovered in any previous era. You only find out about what powers they have arrogated to themselves by accident or determined investigative reporting.

which all means that:
They have declared a dictatorship. Without actually declaring one out loud--they're just doing it.

Democracy had its run, but it ended on 12/12/2000.

Both the initiation of http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/treanor.htm which appears to have essentially been in effect since WW2...some rediculous abandonment of Congress's constitutional role in many ways.

A slightly easier to read rundown http://www.humanrightsnow.org/permanentwar.htm (with some nice solution focused responses)

The Resolution Congress gave Bush to invade Iraq http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Key passage there: SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

----------------

Note...unless I'm missing something huge here...there appears to be no mechanism for STOPPING war....

How the hell do we actually STOP a war? Who can declare it ended? Who can FORCE it ended? Can congress pass an END TO THE WAR Resolution? because perhaps that's what we need to be crafting now. And end to the "WAR" on Terror and all other Wars and replace it with something that does not require an invocation of dictatorial presidential powers?