Reason.com
New at Reason
In the latest installment of the 9/11 anniversary special, Jacob Sullum traces the growth of executive power in the years since the attack.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Are We Headed for a Fight with China? (5.28)
- Lessons From the United Fruit Company (5.28)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
JT Barrie|9.7.06 @ 6:49PM|#
Takes you back to the "good ole daze" when Agnew used to comment "Who are you going to believe: those guys or the President of the United States"? - while Nixon cussed up a storm about the "enemies of America". Now the roles of VP and Prez are reversed.
Unfortunately, being President alone gives you 35% approval rating - no matter how incompetent you are. Of course when you talk like GW, you can go lower. Folksy charm only goes so far when you get caught telling whoppers so many time.
thoreau|9.7.06 @ 8:23PM|#
First, good article.
Second, you write:
With a war that has been defined in such a way that it will never end, we have a perpetual state of emergency that encourages the steady ceding of power to the executive branch, no matter what party happens to occupy it. I'm not sure Republicans have thought through all the implications of that.
Or maybe they have thought through the implications, and that's why they want voting machines with no paper trail?
|9.7.06 @ 8:24PM|#
no concern as to whether this "forever war" is necessary or not?
|9.7.06 @ 10:41PM|#
IF any 'forever war' were truly necessary (and the case for George's war is far from making that point), then it becoms even more vital that Congress get some balls and rein in the Executive Branch's assault on our freedom. If we continue to allow our liberty to be destroyed, what's the point in fighting a war?
|9.7.06 @ 10:49PM|#
The point of fighting a war is winning it.
|9.7.06 @ 10:51PM|#
You have to ask yourself, what are the consequences of losing?
|9.7.06 @ 11:23PM|#
w.e. white wrote: "You have to ask yourself, what are the consequences of losing?"
Another 30 years of conservatives bitching that they would've won a war if the the traitorous media and leftist intellectuals hadn't stabbed them in the back?
|9.7.06 @ 11:30PM|#
With a war that has been defined in such a way that it will never end, we have a perpetual state of emergency that encourages the steady ceding of power to the executive branch, no matter what party happens to occupy it. I'm not sure Republicans have thought through all the implications of that.
Isn't that the plot for the third star wars movie?
|9.7.06 @ 11:33PM|#
and if it's not bush defining the war but our enemies? Even paranoids can be right once.
uncle sam|9.7.06 @ 11:47PM|#
Does GW have enough brains to be paranoid?
|9.7.06 @ 11:51PM|#
idiots can be right too. that stopped clock thing.
|9.8.06 @ 1:07AM|#
"plot for the third star wars movie"
I look forward to the Reason article comparing the Bush to Emperor Palpatine. Let Weigel write it.
|9.8.06 @ 1:19AM|#
? Bush is not Palpatine, he's more like the whiny kid that became Darth Vader. Cheney is more like Palpatine--a plotting legislator, the power behind the scenes who is not revealed until the climax.
|9.8.06 @ 1:23AM|#
My point was that, even if Bush was somehow correct that a neverending war is necessary, surrendering our liberty to his power grab is an unacceptable loss in the waging of said war.
Warrentless bugging, government sanctioned torture, secret prisons, refusing defendants the right to see evidence against them...and these are just a few of the totalitarian extremes that we now KNOW about. This administration's penchant for secrecy screams a warning about the Bush policies and actions we haven't uncovered.
I'd rather have my liberty restored and give my life in a principled battle against terrorists than 'win' under the conditions imposed by Bush.
|9.8.06 @ 1:29AM|#
"a war that has been defined in such a way that it will never end"
I don't see any way around this. There is a sizable group of individuals motivated by their Islamic beliefs (I won't judge whether their interpretation is correct or not) to wage Holy War on western nations. Some of these people run large countries and are developing devastating weapons. Others operate with the tacit support of their governments, which lack the ability to control their activities. They've launched attacks against us around the globe for the past 25 years. Because they are attackign us using low level guerilla tactics, they are very difficult to prevent. Because they are motivated by their religion, and not by anything we can give them in negotiation or threaten to destroy, they are very difficult to deter. What else can this be called other than a war? And how would this war end? Either the fanatics decide to stop their Holy War, we acquiesce to their demands (sharia law and dhimmitude for us all), or one side is destroyed. Outside of those results, we continue to manage the threat by fighting an ongoing low level war against them.
Only since 9/11 have we really started to deal with this threat. Now, everybody has different ideas on how to deal with the ongoing threat, and some this administration's decisions may not have been ideal, but I don't see any of them as outside the scope of what is reasonable in light of the threat.
What is unreasonable is to pretend there is no serious threat. How many people would be killed by a nuclear explosion in Manhattan? Such an event would be far more catastrophic than the events that precipitated any war that this country has ever fought. How would we respond not being sure which government supplied the bomb (Iran? North Korea? Pakistan? lost Russian nukes?) or which terrorist group was responsible?
I'm not a regular reader, so perhaps I've missed it, but what is the consensus among Reason writers and contributers as to how to deal with terrorists motivated by their Islamic beliefs to kill us all?
|9.8.06 @ 1:34AM|#
"I'd rather have my liberty restored and give my life in a principled battle against terrorists than 'win' under the conditions imposed by Bush."
So you'd rather die at the hands of Islamic terrorists than give Bush the discretion to tap phones without warrants and pour water on the faces of al qaeda leaders. I think most would disagree.
|9.8.06 @ 1:43AM|#
From what I've seen, it's not "Islam" that wants us dead, it is various factional leaders who are trying to play on the Islamic sensibilities of the people for their own ends. That's not me being PC either, they've been warring with each other along racial and state lines far longer than they have with us, and it seems the "Glory of Islam" is just another banner of support they use to rouse the people. Hezbollah, perhaps Hamas has been paying off the families of suicide bombers, at the same time mothers are sending their children to run in front of US Army Humvees to try to cash in on the insurance policy; it's related in the same way that both are desperate for a better life, every which way they can.
The "Islam hates the west" crap is just a slogan, a game they're playing to try to seperate the economic ills of their people from their actions intended to rectify those ills, and sadly it seems our own dimwitted demagogues are playing right into it.
So the short answer is: Very carefully.
|9.8.06 @ 1:55AM|#
"So you'd rather die at the hands of Islamic terrorists than give Bush the discretion to tap phones without warrants and pour water on the faces of al qaeda leaders. I think most would disagree."
False dichotomy. The assumption is that the president would use his ill-gotten powers for his own political ends, then that this would extend to increased use in more typical settings, culminating in a police state. Being as how the law he's breaking was written after Watergate, the first assumption is already somewhat correct.
Also, I notice you said "Al-Queda leaders". How many Al-Queda leaders do you think we've captured and tortured so far? Compared with nationals and aquantinces rounded up and held without charges?
|9.8.06 @ 2:04AM|#
"So you'd rather die at the hands of Islamic terrorists..."
You realize that this is less likely than being hit by lightning, right?
|9.8.06 @ 6:23AM|#
So you'd rather die at the hands of Islamic terrorists than give Bush the discretion to tap phones without warrants and pour water on the faces of al qaeda leaders. I think most would disagree.
Actually, I'd rather risk dying at the hands of Islamic terrorists than give Bush the discretion to tap my phone or pour water on my daughter's face. The point behind civil liberties is not to stop the government from torturing bad guys, it's to make the government prove, in public, that they're going after the right guys, and not their political enemies.
That's why we have public trials, and laws of evidence. It's not to protect evildoers--it's to protect me. And you. Because we know governments, Islamic, Christian and atheist, will misuse power always, and against whoever they choose unless they are held accountable. Civil liberties are our protection against torture and murder.
Bush and Cheyney may say 'trust us', but civil liberties are there to ensure we don't have to.
|9.8.06 @ 7:48AM|#
What ever happened to, "if we let them change our way of life, the terrorists have won"? I always thought that was a fairly accurate statement.
thoreau|9.8.06 @ 8:34AM|#
The objectively pro-Stasi brigade loves false dichotomies.
|9.8.06 @ 10:22AM|#
"...pour water on the faces of al qaeda leaders."
The fact that the shredders won't even honestly face up to what they are advocating should be a giant red warning light. So the kulaks have to do a little work for a change, what's the big deal? Uh uh, not having it.
I'm not a radical civil libertarian, Reg. I'm open to the argument that we may have to trade a little liberty for security, and am willing to enter into a dialogue with responsible people about the costs, benefits, and protections that would have to be built into the system.
But you people aren't even willing to admit that such a dialogue is necessary, that there is a risk to our freedom, and to our very persons, from these expanded executive powers. "You don't have civil liberties when you're dead" is supposed to be a conversation ender with you.
No, Reg, security does not automatically trump our status as free people in a free country. Until I see a genuine willingness by the advocates of the security state to come to the table and honestly discuss tradeoffs and values, I am going to stand with the libertoids.
|9.8.06 @ 10:53AM|#
How would we respond not being sure which government supplied the bomb (Iran? North Korea? Pakistan? lost Russian nukes?) or which terrorist group was responsible?
I asked the same question the other day and didn't get many responses. My guess is that we would assign blame to someone and hit back hard, possibly using a nuke. Whether or not that is the right thing to, I'm not so sure. But I think people would expect and demand that we hold someone responsible.
|9.8.06 @ 11:53AM|#
""Only since 9/11 have we really started to deal with this threat."""
Really? Why the hell was I in Lebanon?
That was 23 years ago!
""What is unreasonable is to pretend there is no serious threat."""
Statistics show it's not really a serious threat. You more likey to die from a lighting strike than a terrorist attack. So what would you call drunk driving? An uberthreat? If we average it over the last 25 years. Say roughly 3500 U.S. deaths from terrorism. That comes out to 140 deaths per year. If your concern is saving lives, the money would be better spent on other issues.
""How many people would be killed by a nuclear explosion in Manhattan?"""
I have been saying for over 20 years that a nuclear detonation in Manhattan is the holy grail of terrorist attacks. However, it is the most unlikely. And we should not surrender any rights or ideologies over fear, that is giving in to the terrorist.
""So you'd rather die at the hands of Islamic terrorists than give Bush the discretion to tap phones without warrants and pour water on the faces of al qaeda leaders. I think most would disagree.""
This is flawed as some readers have already mentioned. These are not your only two choices. Failing to give the President unconstitutional powers or staying away from tactics that the evil guys use will NOT make me or us any less safe.
I think you've bought into the spin. The President does not want the authroity to wiretap only calls from AQ to inside the US. He wants the authority to tap any call he wants at anytime he want without oversight. The administraion tries to make it sound like it's only AQ so you can't object to it. You shouldn't fall for it.
If we become like the evil ones to fight the evil ones, then it becomes a war between two groups of evil. There is no good in that.