Good news on the “government by meaningless gesture” front
August 20, 2007
While the Bush Administration obviously deserves to be thrown out of office in disgrace, I’m somewhat surprised at the unanimity with which the Dane County Board of Supervisors voted 20-3 “in favor of a resolution urging Wisconsin’s representatives in the U.S. House to support the impeachment of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other lawless members of their administration”.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:37 pm
What has the Bush Administration done that warrents Impeachment?
August 21st, 2007 at 11:06 pm
In Madison, his crimes include being a Republican. More seriously, the illegal wiretapping is about as clear-cut a case for impeachment as you can find. I know you think it justifiable, but regardless of that, it was in direct violation of federal law.
I don’t personally buy it, but a case could also be made that the manipulation and deception with which the Iraq War was sold in 2002 and 2003 is an impeachable offense.
The extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorists to secret prison camps in Eastern Europe is probably illegal, and is certainly contrary to American ideals of justice.
Those are some of the problems. There are others. In a parliamentary system, his incompetence would have compelled his resignation a long time ago. Unfortunately, we’re stuck with him for another seventeen months.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:36 am
The whole thing with the wire tapping is HE WAS NOT DOING IT TO AMERICAN’S these where Foriegn calls. They were only supposed to listen in on phone # attached to known Terrorists.
I totally don’t buy the whole manipulation and deception thing the Clinton’s and Gore were saying the same things as him back in 1998 and before.
As for the Prison Camps. They are Illegal Combatants and really have no rights.
As for Incompetece everyone makes mistakes we are all human and in my eyes he has done more good than bad.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:07 am
According to federal law, the government needed to get a warrant in order to wiretap the phones of “US persons”. The Bush Administration secretly decided that they had the authority to ignore the law (”when the president does it, that means it is not illegal”), and wiretap the phones of American citizens in the United States who sent or received calls overseas.
The FISA court was already set up to handle the need for secrecy, and to grant warrants as necessary when the government wanted to listen to suspected terrorists. The Bush Administration secretly decided that they didn’t need to follow the law, and that they didn’t need to get warrants, because of the AUMF in Afghanistan.
It seems to me that phrases like “secretly decided to ignore the law” go hand in and with phrases like ‘high crimes and misdemeanors”.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Where is your proof that the Foriegn Surveylence Program did in-fact Wiretap “US persons” the program was put in place to wiretap call to and from Suspected Terrorists. If they are calling people in the US who have disposable Cell phones don’t you think we should be able to intercept those calls?
August 25th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I think that requiring the government to ask a FISA court for a warrant — they are almost always granted, and can be acquired retroactively (you suspect someone is up to no good, you listen in, and then within the next three days you get a warrant) — is a necessary check on government power, as well as a safeguard for our constitutional liberties guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
Is this really not a concern to you? In what way is the government’s law enforcement capabilities harmed by the need to get a warrant? What’s the benefit of doing things George Bush’s way?
August 27th, 2007 at 9:54 am
I have absolutely no problem with getting a warrent when you are doing that against US Citizens. All I’m saying is that wasn’t what the program was about it was to spy on Foriegn phone calls not if I was to call you.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:10 am
To my knowledge, the program could listen in on calls made in the United States by U.S. Citizens so long as that citizen was calling a suspicious character then outside of the U.S.
As many Democrats have been quick to point out, we don’t object to listening on the calls so long as there is a warrant to do so. These are U.S. citizens- you need probable cause!
August 30th, 2007 at 3:39 am
So talking to a suspected Terroist isn’t probable cause?
August 30th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Jason, that’s a question for a court to decide, not a President by fiat. Checks and balances and all that.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:15 am
Ok Fair enough but answer me this why in the world should we fight Terrorism In the legal system.
August 31st, 2007 at 9:21 am
Why in the world should we fight terrorism in the legal system?
Because “fighting terrorism” is a very broad thing with a lot of different facets. When you’re dropping bombs and sending special ops forces into Waziristan, then yeah, those guys don’t get due process. Those are military operations waged under the laws of war.
But when the police think some guy in Minneapolis is up to something, that’s not a military operation. If the government wants to arrest civilians off the street, then they need to get warrants. If they want to spy on American citizens, they need to get warrants. If they want to send civilians to jail, they need to give them trials and respect their habeas corpus rights.
Spying on, or arresting civilians in the United States is fundamentally different from the war in Afghanistan, and pretending that they are the same by calling it a “war on terrorism” is unhelpful.
September 1st, 2007 at 2:33 am
Thank You Ben you might not know it but you just made my point for me.
Tell me how many times has what your saying the Bush Administration is doing has happend?
September 1st, 2007 at 11:38 am
The Jose Padilla case springs immediately to mind, and I’m sure there are a few others. I’m not claiming that people are being disappeared on a regular basis. The problem is that the president claims that he has the authority to behave like this. That in and of itself is a problem, as it is if even one person is labeled an enemy combatant and snatched up off the streets of Chicago.
Do you not see the constitutional principles at stake here?
September 2nd, 2007 at 5:40 am
Yes I do, but I also see the need to do some of these things, You know FDR did alot worse during WWII. I know that is a silly argument but it is the truth. I just think there needs to be a balance between National Security and Constitutional rights but we don’t need to be stupid about it. There such a thing as taking the whole Rights argument to far like some onthe left are by trying to give Terrorists we are holding at GITMO constitutional rights when they arern’t US Citizens and don’t qualify under the Genevea Conventions as lawful combatants.
September 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 pm
You’re giving the Bush administration a little too much credit. To them, it doesn’t even matter if they ARE US Citizens OR qualify as lawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions. They can take away your rights and have no oversight no matter what any judge, international law, or Constitution says.
September 2nd, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Wow you really don’t like them. You make it sound like the Bush Adminstration is full of a bunch of paranoid people who see a criminal or terrorist behind every corner and want to put everyone in Jail and torture them
September 3rd, 2007 at 1:27 am
I’m not arguing that they’re sitting in an underground bunker in high-backed chairs laughing evilly, just that they have claimed the right to do so. It doesn’t matter what a judge says (Hamdan v Rumsfeld); it doesn’t matter what international law says (Gonzales thinks the Geneva Conventions are “quaint”, if I recall the quote correctly); it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says (unwarranted search and seizure in the wiretapping programs).
September 3rd, 2007 at 3:15 am
So are we supposed to give the Detainee (Al-Quadia types pulled off Battlefields) Constitutional Rights when they are not US Citizens? Are we supposed to give them rights under the Geneva Convention when they don’t qualify for that since they are not fighting for a Country? How many of our rights are we suppose to give to the Enemy?