"...the opinion was written by conservative darling J. Michael Luttig-
-who just a couple of months ago was on Bush's short list for the 
Supreme Court. For Luttig to question Bush's use of executive power 
is like Bill O'Reilly announcing that there's too much Christ in 
Christmas."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-
0512250256dec25,1,3472167.column?coll=chi-news-col

Beyond the imperial presidency


Published December 25, 2005


President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the 
federal government should be limited but the powers of the president 
should not. He wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the 
framers did, but doesn't think he should be constrained by their 
intentions.

He attacked Al Gore for trusting government instead of the people, 
but he insists anyone who wants to defeat terrorism must put absolute 
faith in the man at the helm of government.

His conservative allies say Bush is acting to uphold the essential 
prerogatives of his office. Vice President Cheney says the 
administration's secret eavesdropping program is justified because "I 
believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the 
world we live in demands it."

But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving formula: 
What's good for George W. Bush is good for America, and anything that 
weakens his power weakens the nation. To call this an imperial 
presidency is unfair to emperors.

Even people who should be on Bush's side are getting queasy. David 
Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, says in his 
efforts to enlarge executive authority, Bush "has gone too far."

He's not the only one who feels that way. Consider the case of Jose 
Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in 2002 on suspicion of plotting to 
set off a "dirty bomb." For three years, the administration said he 
posed such a grave threat that it had the right to detain him without 
trial as an enemy combatant. In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the 4th Circuit agreed.

But then, rather than risk a review of its policy by the Supreme 
Court, the administration abandoned its hard-won victory and indicted 
Padilla on comparatively minor criminal charges. When it asked the 
4th Circuit Court for permission to transfer him from military 
custody to jail, though, the once-cooperative court flatly refused.

In a decision last week, the judges expressed amazement that the 
administration suddenly would decide Padilla could be treated like a 
common purse snatcher--a reversal that, they said, comes "at 
substantial cost to the government's credibility." The court's 
meaning was plain: Either you were lying to us then, or you are lying 
to us now.

If that's not enough to embarrass the president, the opinion was 
written by conservative darling J. Michael Luttig--who just a couple 
of months ago was on Bush's short list for the Supreme Court. For 
Luttig to question Bush's use of executive power is like Bill 
O'Reilly announcing that there's too much Christ in Christmas.

This is hardly the only example of the president demanding powers he 
doesn't need. When American-born Saudi Yasser Hamdi was captured in 
Afghanistan, the administration also detained him as an enemy 
combatant rather than entrust him to the criminal justice system.

But when the Supreme Court said he was entitled to a hearing where he 
could present evidence on his behalf, the administration decided that 
was way too much trouble. It freed him and put him on a plane back to 
Saudi Arabia, where he may plot jihad to his heart's content. Try to 
follow this logic: Hamdi was too dangerous to put on trial but not 
too dangerous to release.

The disclosure that the president authorized secret and probably 
illegal monitoring of communications between people in the United 
States and people overseas again raises the question: Why?

The government easily could have gotten search warrants to conduct 
electronic surveillance of anyone with the slightest possible 
connection to terrorists. The court that handles such requests hardly 
ever refuses. But Bush bridles at the notion that the president 
should ever have to ask permission of anyone.

He claims he can ignore the law because Congress granted permission 
when it authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda. But we know 
that can't be true. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales says the 
administration didn't ask for a revision of the law to give the 
president explicit power to order such wiretaps because Congress--a 
Republican Congress, mind you--wouldn't have agreed. So the 
administration decided: Who needs Congress?

What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At 
times like this, it's apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power 
not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want 
more power. Another paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, 
they expect our trust, but they can't be bothered to earn it.

----------

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]








------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
1.2 million kids a year are victims of human trafficking. Stop slavery.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/U6CDDD/izNLAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to