For despot he is. So says constitutional scholar, Jonathan Turley. He said this last night on Keith Olbermann’s program. You can watch it here. His full statement is worth pondering.
“People have no idea how significant this is. Really a time of shame this is for the American system.—The strange thing is that we have become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. The Congress just gave the President despotic powers and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to Dancing With the Stars. It’s otherworldly…People clearly don’t realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I’m not too sure we’re gonna change back anytime soon.”
In a previous article, The Bill of Rights, RIP, I analyzed the definition of an illegal enemy combatant according to “The Military Commissions Act, 2006.” I concluded that under the Act, the President has the authority to detain American citizens and deprive them of their rights as defined by the Constitution. Professor Turley comes to the same conclusion.
For Republican Fundamentalists, the significance of this Act will not sink in until it is too late. (Assuming it is not too late already.) The reason is that George Bush can be trusted not to abuse his despotic authority. He is, after all, a principled Christian man. Never mind the fact that his Attorney General wrote papers justifiying horrific forms of torture and that Bush has already deprived American citizens of their IV, V, and VI Amendment rights, Bush would never use his powers against anybody but a terrorist. (A terrorist, by the way, is defined as somebody the Executive deems to be a terrorist.)
But consider that while Presidents come and go, laws like this remain. This means that when a Democrat is elected President, he (or she) will enjoy the same despotic powers. If George Bush does not frighten you, perhaps President Hillary Clinton or President John Kerry may.
When historians write about our present age hundreds of years from now, they will view this piece of legislation as America’s Enabling Act. Our police state will not be identical to that of the Nazi’s, but it will be a police state nevertheless.
Yes, the Bill of Rights is dead. The Military Commissions Act is its obituary.
Yes, I agree. No one seems to care. Christians have been lulled to sleep by Bush’s “Christianity”. And as Schaeffer would say, most Christians are so taken up with their own personal peace and affluence they don’t care what happens as long as the TV works and they can get gas in their cars.
I hear sheep ! Bah Bah ! You people make me sick. As a country we were attacked by fascists ! At every corner the liberals are looking to put shame on President Bush for any policy that could keep this country safe and if they don’t force a shame on him through mass media and childish temper tantrums on the senate floor they enable the liberal media to release top secret information. As a fact we have stopped several attempts to attack this country AGAIN, this was done through interrogation. The Bush administration is trying to preserve a proven tactic in this war. I hear your complaints as schizophrenia. There have been several laws passed that could possibly effect our way of life and none of them have ! Legalization of abortion (which I believe is murder) has not led to selective governmental killing, to this point it is STILL at the discretion although ill of the woman. Your projection of despotism onto George Bush is both extremely uneducated on the facts of a true despot and a poor attempt to further the liberal Christian shame movement that is being forced upon people who actually trust a nut like you !
Did Jim B just justify Bush’s actions by appeal to abortion rights?
Of course not! Read the post that started the blog and use your brain ! Then read my post. Its not a justification it’s an example of a highly contested law that was passed and didn’t effect the county in the way people said it would. If you can’t comprehend a post don’t make idiotic statements !
Well if President Bush is a despot then I’m sure you’ll agree that Roosevelt was a tyrant, as he interred not terrorists but put Janpanese, Italien, and German American citizens into concentration camps.
Jim B– Here’s a simple litmus test to test yourself whether your anger is getting the better of your reason: when you start calling people “nut” rather than pointing out false premises or bad logic in their position.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.
Roosevelt detained an entire race of people.
Both are heroes of our history.
How have we interrogated prisoners of war, and spies (citizens or otherwise) for 200 years?
Well, we don’t really know – state secrets or we assume they’ve been under Military Code of Ethics and Geneva Convention. This legislation codifies a little better our limits, which is more than most countries both West and 3rd World can say, and may even stand the test of time past the “War on Terror” which is more than the administrations of Lincoln and Roosevelt could say.
Tim H,
I don’t deal in litmus tests, I deal in reality. Any person that would suggest George Bush will or could be thought of as a despot IS a nut ! And if you cared to read the entire post you would see that I DID use logic to point out the flaw in MRB’s preposition. Please read my reply to JonathanB and apply the last sentence to yourself. Go read your polls and drink your kool aid.
I would far sooner take the other horn of the dilemma and concede that Lincoln and Roosevelt were no heroes, but tyrants. At least, by their actions not being codified, there was hope of reform by their successors. Less likely now.
Jim B.– the phrase in your post (#2) that especially struck me was “childish temper tantrums.”
The truth is always striking isnt it ?
Better to seek forgiveness than get permission??
So a Supreme Court decision and subsequent Congressional enactment with great deal of noisy negotiation of a Presidential request is tyranny??
Funny I thought that was the Constitution in action with all three branches
TJH- I thought somebody might, but am I given to understand that you would prefer to rely on the good or bad will of a leader, to the governing responsibility of elected leaders?
Here’s a thought experiment.
2009 – Democratic president and Democratic Congress.
When an abortion comes in the 2009 Supreme Court session (and Bush had a chance in late 2008 to nominate 1 or 2 more), the Court knocks down Roe v Wade but says Congress could legislate on the matter.
Mrs. Clinton sends her version of the legislation but some moderate Dem hold up until she makes some compromises that define better a women’s right to choose against the interest of the state and some of the confusion of the balance of that since Roe 40 years ago.
Is that an end run against the Constitution or an affirmation??
Robertb– certainly, if all three branches conspire to undo the rights my ancestors died to win, I call that tyranny! In spades.
Diomedes– Lincoln set the stage for all the subsequent American encroachments, so he is the most evil in my book. By why give out awards? We should lament that these evil men are taking it to yet another level.
You’re not from the Sooouth are you, Tim H??
Robertb: have you read my post, Lincoln: A Brief Introduction? Please scroll down and read it. If you have facts that differ from what I present, present them.
If the only way you can feel righteous indignation at a plain injustice is to be the victim, then I’m calling on you to repent.
Tim H- Hmmm, I don’t believe I was passing out any awards; I was just making an observation that was expanded by Robertb.
If Lincoln and Roosevelt encroached on the enumerated powers granted by the constitution then Bush has retreated by submitting to the Supreme Court and Legislative branches thus enhancing not retracting our Bill of Rights.
Note: The Bill of Rights pertains to citizens of this country and not to enemy combatants.
And terrorists aren’t even lawful combatants authorized by another state. They are more akin to unlawful combatants e.g. spys and sabatours who do not enjoy the safeguards of legal combatants.
Diomedes– Pls make allowances for rhetoric. I wasn’t saying you were passing out awards.
I think where we differ in our political theory can be expressed by the form/matter distinction.
I point out that Lincoln waged an unjust, murderous war on the South without concurrence of Congress, and while threatening to imprison the Supreme Court.
You seem to be saying, “yeah but if he had done it with Congress and the Court, it would have been a lot better if not okay.”
Whereas, I’m suggesting that the evil would actually have been compounded, at least in one sense. In another sense, I grant that Lincoln was even more evil for violating protocol; but that’s way down the list. That’s a little like faulting an axe murderer for not knocking first.
The Bill of Rights originally pertained to Congress (as restriction), not to “citizens of this country.” It was chiefly vis-a-vis the states. The notion of “citizens of this country” itself was a later concept — or am I wrong about that?
But leave that aside. Please read my colleague’s post “Bill of Rights: RIP” down a few posts. Any citizen can be declared an enemy combatant by the President in accordance with the semantics of the bill.
I’m amazed at the zeal you people have for politics. People didn’t even get this excited over the Van Til debate! You people should be ashamed of where your priorities are…. if anyone topic deserves to have a man “bah” at another man like a sheep it’s apologetics!
Anyone that thinks Lincoln is irrelevant to this discussion, see this, posted today.
Tim H– Fair enough on the rhetorical thing–but I believe you were referring to someone else on the issue.
Tis true that The Bill of Rights restricted the stretch of the Federal Government and codified “inalienable rights.”
I think we can safely infer that The Bill of Rights was referring specifically to “citizens of this Country,” and not to the citizens of another. But even here there was some disagreement that was clarified by Article XIV.
Relevant is the Constitution’s preamble “We the people of the United States,” and “all persons born or naturalized…are citizens of the United States…equal protection of the law.” Etc.
Be that as it may the crux of the matter is that there is a working legal definition of “unlawful combatant” that has been addressed by the Supreme Court and by the Geneva Convention. That the Congress reasserted the most basic outline does not obviate the more detailed legal definition.
Neither does a legislative act have the force or legal priority of Positional protection.
An lawful combatant defined by the Hague convention of 1907 and affirmed by the Third Geneva convention is as follows:
(1) To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(2) To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
(3) To carry arms openly; and
(4) To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Those who do not follow the above definition are unlawful combatants.
Military commissions have been used before for exactly these types of unlawful combatants.
In any case The Bill of Rights has not been suspended.
Yes I do believe that if the three branches of government are in agreement as to the legality of action we are better off. It means the rule of law is being followed, as the three branches understand it. Which means that at least on a surface level the three branches acknowledge the authority of the sum of the peoples will as each branch distinctively expresses it. Therefore they are susceptible to changing their action as the people give or rescind approval.
As to evil–well I think we have to come to an agreement of what that is before describing this or that act as evil.
Note: Not Positional protection, but Constitutional protection.
The billc ontains its condition about declaring citizens unlawful combatants for the likes of Padilla and his ilk. If you think congress or the courts would ever let the executive branch run away with the powers in this bill, you don’t understand human nature or the checks and balances system. The Military Commissions Act is one lawsuit away from being declared unconstitutional.
Here is somewhat of an atomistic view of the Bush situation http://de.fishki.net/video/bush.swf
To foolish Agent–Pathetic
“If you think congress or the courts would ever let the executive branch run away with the powers in this bill, you don’t understand human nature or the checks and balances system.”
Right on! Which is exactly why Congress took its job so seriously and prevented President Bush from illegally attacking Iraq. Wait…
At least, if the “checks and balances” are going to save us, that is an argument for voting Democrat next month.
As usual, the Republican faithful offer lots of verbal fireworks, but little substance.
Diomedes is an exception and offers more than propaganda. Good for him. My hope for the comments section is have genuine issues discussed intelligently.
Diomedes – you make a good point about illegal enemy combatants. I have three observations in response.
1) You fail to distinguish between the category of illegal combatant and how and who determines what an illegal enemy combatant is. Let’s grant the legitimacy of the category. As you note, the Geneva Convention defines the category of lawful combatant and so those who fail to meet these criteria are unlawful.
But here’s the problem. According to the Constitution, it is Congress not the Executive or its military tribunals that is given the authority to make rules about captures on land and sea (Article I, section 8). It is unconstitutional for the Executive to determine who is and who is not an enemy combatant without following the specific rules of Congress.
The Congress has unconstitionally handed its authority in this manner to the Executive by passing the Military Commissions Act. See my article, The Bill of Rights, RIP, for more on this.
2) Under the Constitution, American citizens may never be declared to be illegal enemy combatants. If an American wages war against his own country or gives aid and comfort to enemies, he has committed treason. And those accused of treason have a right to a public trial. Article III, section 2 reads:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhereing to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Wintesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
3) When a nation such as the U.S. illegally makes war against another nation or organization (assuming it can make war against an organization), it forfeits any Geneva Convention authority to declare those it is fighting against as illegal enemy combatants. Those who violate the law cannot claim the authority law when it is to their advantage.
However much the Neocon apologists are bludgeoned into a Constitutional corner, at the last they will cry, ‘We need a new paradigm to protect ourselves from a menace our founders could never have imagined.’ Don’t we, at some point, need to address the events of 9/11? Were they what our government claims them to be, a new kind of threat utterly unanticipated(at least by Condolezza Rice), or were they, to borrow from the title of Webster Tarpley’s book on the subject, “synthetic?” There seems to be an elephant in this living room.
DPW – Good point. We have only obliquely addressed the 9-11 issue, 9-11 Five Years Later. It is an important issue and will eventually be more thoroughly discussed at First Word.
not sure if people missed this article, but getting back to the notion of despots when i read this a few minutes ago i almost vomited.
http://www.progressive.org/node/4027
Let me interject, if I could. You discussion is very interesting, but a different matter bothered me: Bush has declared it a crime to be a terrorist. I have no problem with murder being outlawed. I see murder as a sin in the Bible. Perhaps, even, a biblical case could be made for threats of a certain kind (threatening to murder someone, for example) to be sins and therefore crimes punishable by the state. I don’t know quite enough about biblical law to make that case myself, yet.
However, what I don’t see is terrorism as a sin … or a crime. The government seems to be defining new crimes. As such, they are continuing to build up their statist religion. There is nothing more to it right now. The full ramifications of the 15th/16th Amendment were not felt until the Civil Rights Act almost 100 years after it was passed — and that was an amendment. This act will come and go, but the religion which it proclaims is being preached and reinforced. That is the trouble with it.
As far as I see it, America is still building its empire. If I were to superimpose America’s history on top of Rome’s history, I would say that we are still in between the 1st and 2nd Punic Wars. We still have a couple hundred years before a true military state can take place, so we should have lots of children, teach them to worship and obey God, home school or private school them, and wait for God to bless our obedience. After all, obedience is what changes the world. “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”
I think the point is, that Bush will NOT define a terrorist as a criminal. If he did he would have to give him legal recourse and the person would be tried in criminal courts (perhaps as a perpetrator of treason?). That’s why he calls them “enemy combatants” even if they are US citizens.
Good book: How Would a Patriot Act? by Glenn Greenwald.
David Moody writes: “we should have lots of children, teach them to worship and obey God, home school or private school them, and wait for God to bless our obedience. After all, obedience is what changes the world. ‘Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.’”
Agreed.
“America is still building its empire. If I were to superimpose America’s history on top of Rome’s history, I would say that we are still in between the 1st and 2nd Punic Wars. We still have a couple hundred years before a true military state can take place . . .”
Here I think you are off by an order of one hundred. We are a couple of years away a police state. Look for political dissidents to be rounded with the next few years. All the laws are in place and the technology available to the state is far more advanced than anything the Caesars or the Stalinists had. As for the American people, I do not think there is much fight left in them. The state will take as much as it citizens allow. And they have already allowed as much as the citizens of Nazi Germany.
It is not reasonable to debate predictions. But since mine has a short timetable, it can be easily falsified. I’m hoping it is, but fear it will not be.
Thought crime bill approved by House of Representatives
The ostensive purpose of the bill, called the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,” is to set up a federal commission to investigate groups or individuals within the US that pose a terrorist threat. But when you read the definitions, you will see that it is really about thought crimes. For the commission’s job is not to investigate non-existent domestic terrorism, but beliefs that promote terrorism.
(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission’ means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.
(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
(4) IDEOLOGICALLY-BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically-based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.
Here is my favorite line:
“The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.”
How long do you think it will be before that start regulating the internet?
Note that by these definitions, our Founding Fathers were all terrorists.
Charlie Reese gives us an example of political commentary at its finest — crisp, direct, honest (at least, until he gets to the bit about Churchill).