Land of the free?

[Inquartata]

If there weren't more to say, this thread would not be so many pages long.

Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it's really not much fun.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Gav

Certainly the UK doesn't have a militarised police force or any "einsatzgrupen" (to the best of my knowledge).

1 ) You don't have armed SWAT-type police units? Who was it that killed the student in the tube station after the bombings?

2 ) What about the "double-o" section of MI6?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by achilleus

That others, who study history, have drawn similar parallels between the US and pre WWI Germany. That drawing such parallels does not mean that Bush is Hitler. That governments have to begin their descent somewhere, they don't just appear.

And you just thought you post that out of thin air, for no particular reason, on a thread in the Politics forum? For our general edification? No conclusion intended?

Come, now. That rather stretches credulity. In fact you posted it because you agreed with it, because you thought the point of "parallels" deserved buttressing. You chose a weak example, and when called on it you got defensive. Confess! They say it's good for the soul.

Ah, so now you want more information on what I said? At this point, I don't see why I should bother...

How...convenient.

Obviously, you've already made up your mind without any extra information, and given your track record, and the fact that you've admitted that you're not going to change your mind, I see no incentive to dig up the info.

Not to mention the fact that it probably doesn't exist, huh?

Yes, I made up my mind that a hypothetical movie being made on a theme is no proof that the theme is respectable or worthy of consideration. Call me rash.

Is it my fault that you would rather assume than read?

It's your fault that you said something tendentious and then affected outrage at the very intimation that you had said it.

So you think fascist governments and leaders like Hitler just pop up out of nowhere? They just appear out of thin air?

Nope. They grow out of a particular sort of fertile ground. Which I don't detect here.


Mostly I just don't credit the idea that cobbling together a list of some vague, coincidental and likely meaningless resemblances demonstrates anything substantive whatsoever.

I'm sure you've seen the list of "parallels" between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. Very interesting, and absolutely meaningless, even those that weren't concocted. If someone mentioned that Lincoln and Kennedy were both great Presidents, and I chimed in "Very good point, there are all these parallels between them", your proper response would be to blow a raspberry ( and possibly to direct me to Snopes ).

I believe in my opinions. I know what I've read. It's possible the historians who drew the parallels are wrong, it's possible that article written in the newspaper I read years ago was false, it's also possible that I am misremembering the facts of what I read. Just because I've read these things, and accept that historians have drawn parallels, a TV Documentary was made, and squashed, doesn't mean that I believe Bush is Hitler, or that the US is heading down the road to a fascist governemnt.

I'm glad to hear it. But the assertion that I was pooh-poohing was that the supposed parallels mean anything worth talking about, still less that the existence of a movie makes the theory any more respectable. NOT that "Bush is Hitler".

It's hard to take your criticism to heart when it didn't even reference what I wrote...

Oh? What criticism was that? I never criticised anything you wrote. You must not have read what I said very carefully. Because of course your interpretation of what I said is

No

Where.

Don't fret Inq, you'll find plenty of people online that are willing to prove you wrong. I just don't have the time, energy, or desire.

Yes, we know. You are Above It All.

[esskreemr]

Well, at least to me.

The President claims wide-ranging powers as Commander-and-Chief of the United States during times of war. Perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't a state of war have to exist for the President to assume this alleged military dictatorship? There is no current declared war. For reference please see Article I of the U.S. Constitution which states "The Congress shall have the power to declare war." The last time that Congress has formally declared war was during WWII.

The last few conflicts have been 'Authorizations to use force', which is why they come under the War Powers Resolution which definitely limits the President's power and authority and requires him to frequently report to Congress.

So, the 'war' that the President is claiming gives him the power to do anything he wants, anytime he wants, to anyone he wants simply doesn't exist.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

1 ) You don't have armed SWAT-type police units? Who was it that killed the student in the tube station after the bombings?

Perhaps I should have said that we don't have a generally militarised police force. And that "militarised police force" is an extremely small section of the UK police and is being called to heel over that particular killing.

2 ) What about the "double-o" section of MI6?

[/quot]

I think you have been watching to many Bond films.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

The President claims wide-ranging powers as Commander-and-Chief of the United States during times of war. Perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't a state of war have to exist for the President to assume this alleged military dictatorship?

The short answer is no, it doesn't.

{snip}So, the 'war' that the President is claiming gives him the power to do anything he wants, anytime he wants, to anyone he wants simply doesn't exist.

Even under a Congressionally declared "war," there is no such power.

As the Supreme Court recently held:

We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens. Youngstown Sheet & Tube, 343 U.S., at 587. Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 380 (1989) (it was “the central judgment of the Framers of the Constitution that, within our political scheme, the separation of governmental powers into three coordinate Branches is essential to the preservation of liberty”); Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 426 (1934) (The war power “is a power to wage war successfully, and thus it permits the harnessing of the entire energies of the people in a supreme cooperative effort to preserve the nation. But even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties”).

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 US 507 (2004)

--Philistine

[Slim]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't a state of war have to exist for the President to assume this alleged military dictatorship?

Only you and your ilk are alleging anything of the sort.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Slim

Only you and your ilk are alleging anything of the sort.

Oh, so you believe that the President doesn't need a state of war to exercise unlimited power without oversight?

[Slim]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Oh, so you believe that the President doesn't need a state of war to exercise unlimited power without oversight?

I dont believe the existance of the so called military dictatorship that you enjoy alleging....over and over again.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Slim

I dont believe the existance of the so called military dictatorship that you enjoy alleging....over and over again.

The President has stated time and time again that laws do not apply to him.

[jessicasimpson]

Here is an interesting quote,(and I am Paraphrasing)
"No one wants a war, but it is the Leaders that set the Policy, It is easy to get the people to fall in line whether it is Domacratic, or a faciast dictatorship, or a parlement, or a communist dictatorship. Just tell the people they are being attacked, then demonize the passifists for not being patiotic and exposing the country to more danger
Herman Goering
Neromberg Trials (sp?)

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

The President has stated time and time again that laws do not apply to him.

Too glib, and you ruin your arguments with such glibness.

For example, the President has said that restrictions on what law-enforcement can do aren't applicable to military and intelligence actions.

And the President has said that restrictions on purely domestic eavesdropping do not apply to eavesdropping that crosses the border.

These are reasonable positions, on which people can and do differ, but they can hardly be characterized as you have done. What he says is "this is lawful," rather than "it is not lawful, but I am above the law."

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

The President claims wide-ranging powers as Commander-and-Chief of the United States during times of war. Perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't a state of war have to exist for the President to assume this alleged military dictatorship? There is no current declared war.

The Constitution does not limit the President's power as C in C to times of war. It says only "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".

The last few conflicts have been 'Authorizations to use force', which is why they come under the War Powers Resolution which definitely limits the President's power and authority and requires him to frequently report to Congress.

This is a much more interesting angle than the "He violated FISA" one, because indeed the Administration has repeatedly cited the AUMF as its empowering justification for the warrantless wiretappings. Hence it tacitly recognizes the War Powers Act as a basis for granting the AUMF; hence it seems to have accepted that the War Powers Act is NOT an infringement of inherent Presidential powers, as some other Administrations have done...

But I don't see how that rationale gets us to the wiretappings being illegal. He has kind of screwed himself if he ever wants to claim that the WPR is unconstitutional, but having done so his chain of justification for the wiretaps looks pretty airtight...

So, the 'war' that the President is claiming gives him the power to do anything he wants, anytime he wants, to anyone he wants simply doesn't exist.

I'd be interested in seeing a quote that has him saying the former.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Gav

I think you have been watching to many Bond films.

That was the point of the jest.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

The President has stated time and time again that laws do not apply to him.

Really? Where?

Surely you have a verifiable quote ready to hand?

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Really? Where?

Surely you have a verifiable quote ready to hand?

No need. I'll retract it since it was a tongue-in-cheek exaggeration anyway.

[YankeeRebel]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

The President has stated time and time again that laws do not apply to him.

Actually, Bush's favorite line is "everything I am doing is legal." He keeps saying it and saying it and saying it, but he never really explains how it's all "legal." Bush offers the American public no explanation of what the law is, nor does he explain how his actions conform to the law. He just keeps saying "it's all legal" as if his mere words are enough to make it so.

In the immortal words of Richard Nixon, "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." Yeah, right . . .

[jeff]

That sounds familar... "L'etat c'est moi", or words to that effect...

[YankeeRebel]

If all this unwarranted spying is all "legal" (as Bush now contends), why did Bush previously tell the public that "court orders" and "judicial permission" were necessary to conduct such wiretaps?

From the White House website:

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."--George W. Bush, April 20, 2004

"One tool that has been especially important to law enforcement is called a roving wiretap. Roving wiretaps allow investigators to follow suspects who frequently change their means of communications. These wiretaps must be approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers and other criminals."--George W. Bush, June 9, 2005

If unwarranted spying was all above board and legal, why did Bush go out of his way to insist that this spying was being done with the permission and oversight of the courts? Why would he lie about it in the first place?