> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 8:24 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: We Will Not Be Afraid > > > On 06/10/2006, at 11:15 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > > >> > >> Anyway - in an ideal world, my disagreements with Republicans would > >> be on policy. But at the moment it's not, it's with the ideology of > >> the current administration and the damaging shortsightedness of that. > >> And the Democrats have been complicit, as a party, by not providing a > >> resistance to this, especially to the erosion of checks and balances, > >> and the power-grab by the Executive. Even if they were going to get > >> rolled as a minority, they should have still stood up for their own > >> policies. And didn't. Shame on them. The system only works if there > >> are two parties instead of one. > > > > But, that's not really what happened. For example, Bush's > > executive powers > > are less than those from FDR through Nixon....even after his big > > push to > > expand them. Checks and balances are still working. > > Erosion of, not suspension of. > > > > The clearest example > > of this is Bush's need to negotiate the limits of his power with > > Senators > > from his own party. He got reigned in far earlier than FDR got > > reigned in > > by his party (for trying to pack the Supreme Court). > > Still, what is with the attempt to suspend _habeus corpus_?
He's not actually doing that. Lincoln did that. Indeed, he's the classic example of presidential power. He has the state legislature of Maryland arrested on the way to a vote. The constitutional justification of this was the suspension of habeus corpus during the time of war. The practical/principled justification was that, if they were allowed to vote, Washington DC would have been inside the Confederate states, and the Union would have been destroyed. So, if Bush were to do something like this, or even do something like the internment camps of WWII for Arab-American citizens, or use the domestic spying agency on his political opponents (as was done by Hoover....who wasn't elected to anything), then I'd be very upset. But, he's pushing the boundaries....not marching right over them. If you are interested, I can walk through the specifics. But, let me look at habeus corpus. Historically, including Supreme Court rulings, the Constitution does not cover the actions of the US government with regards to non-citizens who are not within the United States. So, the Viet Cong who were imprisoned in 'Nam did not have habeus corpus rights. The had no constitutional protection. Non-citizens within the United States do have rights. But, they have some limitations that citizens do not. In particular, those who are here illegally can be detained for deportation. This can be done for a very long time. They can be deported at will. Bush has been very careful to limit the testability of his actions. He claims a great deal of presidential power. Traditionally, the Supreme Court would like the Congress to be the counter-weight to this....so they weigh in slowly. In addition, for someone to bring a court case, they have to show harm. Since no-one has been arrested as a result of the warrentless wiretaps, then it is very hard for anyone to prove potential harm. Finally, the risk an American citizen has of losing his habeus corpus rights are very small. I think there is one case where an American has been declared an enemy combatant, without such rights, and there is some justification for it (I'm not saying that I necessarily agree, but that I can see some Constitutional justification for the argument.) People can renounce their US citizenship. One way to do it is go to a consulate, and formally declare that. But, if someone joins another army that is fighting the US overseas, then there is some indication that this also can be considered renouncing one's citizenship. But, one cannot arrest a US citizen in the US, and declare them an enemy combatant, without judges being involved very quickly. Bush has been somewhat careful about what he does. In a real sense, this is the result of the effectiveness of the checks and balances. > > Now, this doesn't mean that I agree with Bush. It's just that his > > re-election does not represent the decay of long cherished American > > values. > > Do you not think that protection of liberty has been eroded under > Bush 43? Or, at least, badly disrespected? I think he has a WWF (World Wrestling Federation) viewpoint of the world. There are the good guys and the bad guys. No, he's better than many who hold this because he believes that the average person in Iraq, Africa, etc. are part of the "freedom loving people of the world threatened by the enemies of freedom." But, it does mean that he thinks it's OK and often necessary to use harsh measures on the bad guys...and that doing so doesn't hurt liberty at all. I differ with him significantly on this. Yet, given the fact that 9-11 was the worst foreign attack on US states since y'all did it back in 1812 :-)....I was actually pleased with how moderate the reaction was, compared to past reactions with less justification. So, I'm not liable to fear the New Gestapo is just around the corner. Also, you have to remember, I've heard all the claims about Amerika 30-40 years ago. :-) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
