 |
Taking Away the Toolbox, or Why Punishing Bush is Necessary |
 |
I’m not one who goes in for the try-Bush-for-war-crimes thing. Liberals can only blame Bush for their problems for so long, and that time is rapidly coming to an end.
Still, recent events have re-convinced me such steps are necessary, though I do think the way these movements are pushing their case may be counterproductive.
First, there’s warrantless wiretapping:
The Obama administration is again invoking government secrecy in defending the Bush administration’s wiretapping program, this time against a lawsuit by AT&T customers who claim federal agents illegally intercepted their phone calls and gained access to their records.
And next, there is habeas corpus and Geneva Convention rights:
The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.
Taken together, it’s clear the Obama administration will defend the tools of executive power George Bush created. As John Nichols of The Nation explained months ago:
On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any president has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don’t give away the tools. They don’t give them up. The only way we take tools out of that box is if we sanction George Bush and Dick Cheney now and say the next president cannot govern as these men have.
Nichols was right. Those powers don’t go away unless someone makes them go away. It doesn’t much matter that I trust President Obama so much more than I ever trusted Bush. It’s looking unlikely that Obama will give up these tools voluntarily, so prosecuting Bush and Cheney for using these tools might be the oly way to put the genie back into the bottle.
So, on with the prosecutions!
(Oh, and by the way, I believe Get FISA Right was promised a “comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future” from the Attorney General during the campaign. Has that happened yet? What were the results?)
The USA is becoming the bankers’ police state:
Link
Yessir!
If you’re going to quote a source with little quote-boxes, provide the source! Unattributed quotes are confusing may lend an argument more or less credibility than it deserves.
Regarding your main premise, regrettably there is a slippery slope argument to be made. A battlefield prisoner should not have the same process as a law-enforcement prisoner. Bush pushed that argument to the point of credulity, where Americans were detained without limit and review.
Your post implies to me that you’re willing to brook no answer beside full US court process for all detainees by Americans anywhere in the world, under any circumstances. Not terribly interesting.
I’m not sure what you mean about not quoting the source. That’s what the links leading into the blocks are for. Click em for the source…
Why would the president want to take away executive powers? I mean these are politicians we are talking about. I am more surprised people found this shocking.
I know! Let’s all hold our breath until they do the right thing! Ready, go!
I have two questions regarding this article:
1. Isn’t it up to the Supreme Court and the Legislative branch to reign in Executive powers? I don’t see how legal action toward Bush addresses this issue at all.
2. Habeas Corpus isn’t guaranteed for people who aren’t US Citizens, is it? Certainly the Geneva Convention rules apply, but is Guantanamo actually unconstitutional?
Appearantly laws don’t control illegal activity……………..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8611789/The-United-StatesThe-New-Roman-Empir e
Please go to the above link and read the two docs posted there. This will answer much as to why these things are going on. We are not run by a de jure republic Constitutional government, we are run by a de facto corporation, listed in the code @ 28USC 3002(15)(A). Obama is the CEO, appointed by those in charge, namely the Rothschild banking cartel and the Illuminati (freemasonry), of which the Rothschilds are members. Thanks for reading.
I’ll start to worry if he tries to keep them after the “secret” prisons are closed down.
This probably keeps things from getting “legally complicated”.
WHAT battlefield prisoners? The “war on terror” is just a phrase, and these detainees are criminals, not combatants. Just because someone bombs a civilian target with a terrorist bomb he is not an enemy combatant and the US is not at war with him, he is a criminal committing mass murder and destruction of property. Such acts should be handled as the crimes they are, not by extraordinary means based on some nebulous “war on terror” catchphrase.
Human rights are by their nature universal, and suspending Habeas Corpus for ANYONE is truly the slipperiest of slippery slopes. It is in times like these where maintaining the rule of law for everybody becomes absolutely crucial, otherwise civilisation as we know it has already begun circling the drain. People have fought and died for these things, and it’s amazing how we can throw them away when someone spouts enough scary propaganda.