Reason.com
New at Reason
An unsung hero gets his due, al Qaeda tapes don't always arrive on cue, and what falling gas prices can do... in the new Reason Express.
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.
|9.12.06 @ 8:41AM|#
"The bin Laden video along with the Ayman al-Zawahiri "anniversary message" must remind American counter-terror officials that al Qaida remains functional and still committed to its long-term goals".
Screw the counter-terrorism officials, how about reminding the American people. The dangers of another attack rise if voters follow Reason's lead and abolish the programs that are obviously doing some good. You can bet the counter-terrorism officials know they're still out there, but it seems many of your writers and readers don't know it or don't care.
|9.12.06 @ 9:41AM|#
Hey there, would you like to buy this rock? It keeps tigers away...
|9.12.06 @ 9:46AM|#
"The dangers of another attack rise if voters follow Reason's lead and abolish the programs that are obviously doing some good."
Sign me up! Since the restriction of our freedom is "obviously doing some good," we should sign away ALL of our freedoms, because then we would "obviously" be doing even better! I can't believe I didn't see how "obvious" the benefits of losing liberty are. Since you are the expert in "obvious" benefits, James Ard, could you please direct me to the nearest police station. I have transcripts of my last 50 hours of telephone conversations, and even though there's no terrorist activity, the benefits of collecting my data are "obvious." Thank you for your sage post, James Ard, I guess I'll stop being so irresponsible, and start being serious about life. Up until now, I was so stupid, but your post has illuminated everything. I beg every Reason writer: Please know!! Please care!!!
|9.12.06 @ 10:12AM|#
I was unaware that information gathered through wiretapping is rendered useless if a warrant was first obtained to collect it.
Thanks, James Ard! The Global War on Checks and Balances couldn't go forward without good people like you.
|9.12.06 @ 10:21AM|#
Lamar, to me the benefits are obvious, but some people are too thickheaded to realize that something has prevented another attack over the last five years. Do I think many of the programs are inefficient and ineffective? hell yes. But repealing all of them at the alter of pure liberty is going to get a lot of us killed.
|9.12.06 @ 10:31AM|#
Joe, We all know FISA is outdated. International communications have changed dramatically since 1972. More calls and new mediums make acquiring a warrent on every call an unrealistic burden. Even a big government guy like you would balk if Bush asked for 10,000 more lawyers to work the FISA court every day. Yes, congress needs to get in the game and change the rules, and in the mean time the courts are doing a pretty good job of checking the executive's war powers.
|9.12.06 @ 10:37AM|#
James Ard,
I didn't say "FISA Law." I said "warrant." If the law needs to be revised, then send revisions to Congress. For some reason, the President won't even do that.
"More calls and new mediums make acquiring a warrent on every call an unrealistic burden." 1. Improvements in telecommunications and computer technologies have reduced that burden.
2. Only if they're trolling through millions of innocent people's calls.
We can't have the president deciding on his own that he doesn't have to follow the law.
"...and in the mean time the courts are doing a pretty good job of checking the executive's war powers." And whenever they do, the President's defenders accuse them of undermining our security.
|9.12.06 @ 10:50AM|#
Bush won't send revisions to congress because it would imply that his powers as commander in chief during an authorized war can be limited by congress.
|9.12.06 @ 10:51AM|#
Bush won't send revisions to congress because it would imply that his powers as commander in chief during an authorized war can be limited by congress. You know, the oath to uphold the constitution and all that.
|9.12.06 @ 11:07AM|#
"Hey there, would you like to buy this rock? It keeps tigers away..."
No thanks. I've already got a banana that repels crocodiles if you hold it in your ear.
|9.12.06 @ 11:37AM|#
See, here I was, worried that the executive branch is overstepping its bounds and breaking the law, and James Ard was nice enough to reassure me that, because it's "wartime," the president has no bounds, and doesn't have to obey the law.
It's in that very special part of the Constitution, right between "...shall take care to faithfully execute the laws..." and "...Congress shall retain the legislative power..." that the president is declared to be untouchable by Congress during wartime.
It's the special "The President becomes King during war" amendment; how silly of me.
|9.12.06 @ 11:43AM|#
Here's a fun game. Look up which branch has the most written military duties.
|9.12.06 @ 11:57AM|#
Sorry I should mentioned, look it up in the Constitution.
|9.12.06 @ 12:14PM|#
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.
If we're going to assume that the title C-in-C brings with it certain unenumerated powers - which is certainly does - then a good place to start would be to look at the unenumerated powers that the latter enjoys in his sphere, and conclude that the President's powers of similar, but applicable to the entire armed forces, rather than a subdivision thereof.
I don't think the C-in-C of the Pacific Fleet ever enjoyed the unreviewable right to order domestic spying in Hawaii without warrants.