New at Reason

December 21, 2005

George Bush asserts sweeping executive power. Jacob Sullum asserts this.

Comments

|12.21.05 @ 8:20AM|#

I'm telling you (I've been saying for a long time, actually): the first mistake we as a country made was allowing the political class to brand the fight against terrorism as a "war".

As long as they're allowed to do this, then our liberties will continue to slowly (or, not so slowly) and surely be taken from us. The "war" on terror is referred to time and time again by every gubmint official I see; it is used to justify "emergency" measures; it is conjured up as an excuse to run roughshod over the constitution. But to pacify the people, they indirectly infer this "war" will end someday, and we shouldn't worry about our liberties being taken, because it's only temporary. Problem is, the fight against terrorism won't ever actually "end"---and calling it a "war" in the traditional sense is extremely dangerous.

Bush's "I can do whatever I want whenever I want because I'm the Commander in Chief" mantra is just another injustice in a long line of injustices that, contrary to the implied rhetoric of the offenders, is not temporary. The State is so obviously using this "we're at war!" opening to grab as much power as they can before we, the people, step back and see what they're doing. They're like a gameshow contestant in a big box full of swirling money...grab as much as you can before time runs out!

Warren|12.21.05 @ 8:30AM|#

If Bush is impeached out of office ala Nixon, I'll take some comfort in that. How any American can continue to believe the man is not Satan's minion is quite beyond me. I will continue to despair over the injustice of our system of government however, until he's convicted of war crimes (torture) and serves at least one day in prison.

|12.21.05 @ 8:52AM|#

"If Bush is impeached out of office ala Nixon, I'll take some comfort in that."

Nixon was not impeached...he resigned.

Warren|12.21.05 @ 9:04AM|#

jw,
Exactly, he resigned under the threat of impeachment, as opposed to Clinton 'go ahead impeach me, who gives a rat's ass'.

|12.21.05 @ 9:13AM|#

Warren,

I seriously doubt that Bush could be pressured into resigning the way that Nixon was. Nixon KNEW that he had done something wrong even though he never admitted it publicly at the time. Bush, on the other hand, seems to think that he is perfectly in the right. Besides...Cheney would never let him resign.

|12.21.05 @ 9:15AM|#

Sounds like a new Bureaucrash t-shirt to me: "I disagree with your assertion of unchecked power".

|12.21.05 @ 9:17AM|#

But to pacify the people, they indirectly infer this "war" will end someday, and we shouldn't worry about our liberties being taken, because it's only temporary.

You mean "imply".

|12.21.05 @ 9:19AM|#

Both Clinton and Carter Authorized Warrantless wiretaps, and the Supreme Court has upheld that this is a power the president has under the constitution.

Warren|12.21.05 @ 9:30AM|#

Evan,
I'm mostly on board with you. However, I'm even more cynical. I don't think Bush is that deceitful about doing away with civil liberties. He's been rather bold in advancing his assertions. What bothers me, is how eager so many seem to be to forfeit their liberties for the illusion of... security? strength? actually I think it's piety.

If you listen you can already here the refrain,
Hail Creaser.

|12.21.05 @ 9:34AM|#

I've said this in another thread, but the big issue here isn't the Bush administration per se, it's this unresolved question of what, precisely, is the scope and source of presidential authority? I disagree with the position that this administration is taking, but it's not even mildly novel--every modern president (even Carter, in his fight against the War Powers Act) has made such assertions.

In my book, any exertion of executive authority needs to be subject to check by the other branches of government (though such checks might be applied ex post facto in a crisis). Without those checks, an "emergency" can be used to justify almost any action by the executive. In fact, Jonah Goldberg said something in his reckless defense of the NSA mess that I found disturbing (especially from a nominally "anti-government" Republican): "There's very little an American president can't do when there's an immediate crisis". Really? I might understand that sort of logic when we are in the process of being invaded, but the reality of our political, economic, and military position in the world seems to make such remarks highly questionable.

Let's put this in perspective: Islamic terrorism is a high-profile annoyance that has cost and will cost lives, but it isn't some huge threat to the United States' overall security. If it really became one, we could easily conquer every single Muslim nation, without giving up any of our civil liberties. I don't advocate that sort of action, but I note it for people who deem these kinds of presidential actions as necessary for this "emergency".

Warren|12.21.05 @ 9:36AM|#

And before I forget,

Great article Jacob,
"I disagree with your assertion of unchecked power," Oh yeah that's the money line. Outstanding, definitely needs T-shirts and bumper stickers

|12.21.05 @ 9:39AM|#

Let's put this in perspective: Islamic terrorism is a high-profile annoyance that has cost and will cost lives, but it isn't some huge threat to the United States' overall security. If it really became one, we could easily conquer every single Muslim nation, without giving up any of our civil liberties. I don't advocate that sort of action, but I note it for people who deem these kinds of presidential actions as necessary for this "emergency".

Is that really your view? Terrorism is an annoyance, and if it becomes enough of a problem we can just conquer all the muslim nations?

|12.21.05 @ 9:41AM|#

Sorry, I meant to link to Goldberg's article. Another thing that pissed me off about the article is Goldberg's assertion that "those Democrats" are making some huge political mistake opposing the NSA authorization and the USA Patriot Act. Um, I oppose both, and I've been a Republican for 21 years. A libertarian one, yes, but still, by definition, not a Democrat. I'm getting really sick of all of this kneejerk support either party gives the executive when they are in power. How does The National Review or any other media source expect to have credibility when it blindly supports anything "its team" does?

Warren|12.21.05 @ 9:44AM|#

Pro,
There's something in your post I find deeply disturbing. You charecterized Jonah Goldberg as an "anti-government" Republican.

Perhaps the scare quotes imply the term is being used ironically.

|12.21.05 @ 9:49AM|#

Well, heck, MarkP, I thought I said, "I don't advocate that sort of action, but I note it for people who deem these kinds of presidential actions as necessary for this 'emergency' " right after that remark. Of course I don't want to conquer anybody (well, without massive provocation, I guess). I was just trying to say (apparently, not very effectively) that calling something that is--in the greater scheme of things--not a gigantic threat to our existence an emergency that justifies unchecked assertions of power is disingenuous at best. And please don't think I'm minimizing 9/11 or the continuing threat of terrorism--I'm not. But al Qaeda ain't the Soviet Union, either.

|12.21.05 @ 9:51AM|#

"How does The National Review or any other media source expect to have credibility when it blindly supports anything "its team" does?"

They don't blindly support everything bush does. They've been very critical of him when they disagree with thim. The fact that they support him on an issue where you disagree with the president doesn't imply that they always support him.

|12.21.05 @ 9:52AM|#

Warren, I went straight past irony into full-blown sarcasm :)

|12.21.05 @ 9:56AM|#

Good article, Jacob.

The basic GOP position on checks and balances is now: "Three branches good, one branch better."

|12.21.05 @ 10:00AM|#

Reuters has a story on Yahoo that James Robertson, one of the judges on the FISA court has resigned in protest over Bush's actions and assertions of powers.

|12.21.05 @ 10:01AM|#

MarkP, I read NRO regularly, and I find their opposition to GOP positions to be relatively infrequent, and they almost never do so on any major foreign policy/national security issue. They're best on stuff like the domestic economy, where I'll grant that they've complained about the Administration's (and Congress') actions on occasion. Still, they do annoy me with their regular attacks on libertarians within the party.

Viking "eeyore" Moose|12.21.05 @ 10:07AM|#

Good article, Jacob!

these are the same people who tried convincing everybody that "starving the beast" was a good idea.

"Since the president thought Congress was not willing to change the law, he simply ignored it, although he was polite enough to let some legislators know he was ignoring it."

"The details of these briefings are a matter of dispute...."

The more people call for the government to "solve something", the bigger the encroachment on our liberty can be really stressful.

but that the Bush parrot organization NRO, the right wing version of some of the idiot liberals we encounter here from time to time, organization that might think that the starvation process for one beast is easier to monitor than for three...

pro liberate: you most certainly weren't minimizing. and if someone were to read that into your post, then they're not worth the electrons on the screen. (it's back to yesterday's "not PC enough" reflex. it's there, planted by the neocons, too).

Warren|12.21.05 @ 10:07AM|#

How does The National Review or any other media source expect to have credibility when it blindly supports anything "its team" does?

They don't. Credibility isn't the goal. The name of the game is power. When your team is out of power, you use your publications to attack the other side. Cultivating credibility during such times is useful in building a coalition. However, when in power the only role of your press is cheerleader. You have to keep the troops fired up and loyal for as long as possible as you betray them for personal gain.

It's a very old game, the rules were formalized centuries ago.

|12.21.05 @ 10:38AM|#

"Both Clinton and Carter Authorized Warrantless wiretaps, and the Supreme Court has upheld that this is a power the president has under the constitution."

No, they did not, at least not with respect to US CITIZENS, but that is a current Administration talking point. And, let me say, even if they did, so what? Does a bank robber get away with his crime by pointing out that plenty of other people have robbed banks in the past?

Here is the breakdown on the Carter/Clinton spin:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

|12.21.05 @ 10:45AM|#

Apparently the secret prison situation is much, much worse than we thought:

This January, the President will issue an order for Jack Bauer to be sent to a secret prison!

|12.21.05 @ 11:31AM|#

Of course one branch is more efficient, that's kinda the point of splitting it up. On the upside Han Feizi would be proud.

Warren|12.21.05 @ 11:39AM|#

Eddy,
Thanks for the link. I've added it to my wish list.

|12.21.05 @ 1:12PM|#

Jacob: good article

|12.21.05 @ 2:18PM|#

Here's the thing I just don't get: why do people like Bush gleefully poke holes in the constitution when he knows that those holes will be turned against his party and his policies after the democrats inevitably come to power? Does he really believe he can do more good by shredding the constitution than the democrats can do wrong once it's already been shredded? What's to stop President Hillary Clinton from declaring all gun owners or all abortion protestors or all lumberjacks as terrorists (subject to secret wiretapping, indefinite imprisonment, torture, etc., etc.) once her predecessor has removed those pesky checks on the executive branch? I don't think Bush would like that, but he's doing his best to make it possible. The constitution is the only thing that keeps politics even remotely civililized. Without it, we're just another 3rd world country ruled by whichever mob takes control.

|12.21.05 @ 3:12PM|#

...um...

...Make that Godwin's Law. ; )

|12.21.05 @ 5:02PM|#

"Without it, we're just another 3rd world country ruled by whichever mob takes control."

But, that's what a democracy is.

|12.22.05 @ 11:12AM|#

>>"Without it, we're just another 3rd world >>country ruled by whichever mob takes control."

"But, that's what a democracy is."

That's why the US isn't a democracy.