A New Suggestion

Since my last exercise in lawyerly woolgathering turned out to be on the money, here's another legal suggestion:

With his newly affirmed non-constitutional powers, why doesn't President Bush just have John Kerry arrested?

Comments

[keith]

It's possibilities like this that actually makes me thankful for the Free Mumia crowd. As long as they're out there agitating for and protecting the due process of the nutcases, I feel better that there's a ready, populated and loud voice in the event of due process failures on political grounds.

[c]

ooooh, even better.... some sort of rabble rousing third party should just announce one of these detained US citizens as their presidential nominee.

[zorel]

thoreau,

"How foolish of me to worry that the government might ever abuse an unprecedented and unconstitutional power"

Your foolishness was not what you said here; it is what your earlier post said. Try to defend that (Bush or a Democrat President would arrest the other major party candidate before an election).

" and let me add in the obligatory "Of course, it would be much worse if a Democrat were in the White House" "

No, it is not obligatory, except may be in your mind that your "pox on both houses (but a little bit more on Bush)" attitude would somehow get more legitimacy for your point.

[Jason Ligon]

No point in arresting Kerry. Anybody can be NotBush. A randomly selected replacement will have:

A) More charisma
B) Likely a consistent platform
C) more charisma

[greg]

You know, maybe we should ask Eugene V. Debs how unlikely he thinks the idea of arresting a presidential canidate is.

Wilson, everyone's favorite democrat, arrested and sentanced him to 10 years in prison for giving an anti-war speech. He served about 2 years until Harding, the most libertarian of 20th centruy presidents (and why he is always ranked dead last in those stupid polls), commuted his sentence.

[c]

ahhh, so that's what Cheney's talking about when he goes on about restoring some of the long-erroding powers of the president . . .

[Tim Cavanaugh]

served about 2 years until Harding, the most libertarian of 20th centruy presidents (and why he is always ranked dead last in those stupid polls), commuted his sentence.

I can die happy. Somebody out there shares my appreciation for Harding!

[zorel]

fyodor,

I don't have the time or the inclination to explain why every conceivable slippery slope situation is not going to happen.

When Rick Santorum told us that legitimizing sodomy would result in god knows what bad things, we simply laughed at him (rightly so, I think). Did you ask why it was legally not possible?

Why it is not possible for the President to arrest his opponent is because that would be crossing a line and the PEOPLE won't stand for that. Ten, twenty years ago, the people wouldn't stand for gay marriages. Now many believe it's not objectionable. Hence the progression in court rulings. If 20 years from now the Republic is in such a state that a President feels he/she can get away with arresting the opponent, it might be tried. That is not the case now.

If a sitting pol tried to do this shit to his political opponents, it is a cause for shooting that bastard. (but if a bunch of bi-partisan pols pass "campaign finance reform" that is OK:-)

[Mark S.]

Fydor wrote: "I've already heard a left-liberal friend talk about the efforts of "conservatives" to suppress the film's ads with McCain-Feingold without breathing a word about how maybe this means it's not a good law."

Well, of course he and other liberals think it's a good law... when it's used against conservatives. Remember, when people in this country talk about "freedom," they are usually referring to just their own.

[zorel]

Lonewacko,

Kerry should actually go into hiding and his supporters should claim Bush 'disappeared' him. Moore would shoot a 'documentary' about the whole thing. In November it will be a landslide for Kerry ticket.

For the deep thinkers: if you are asking "Kerry has disappeared, what now?", Hillary will be the VP candidate and will take over on Jan 20, 2005.

[fyodor]

Mark S,

Right, and that's why people thinking such a commeuppance (sp?) would change the minds of those who supported the law are wrong.

zorel,

Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile! 🙂 Okay, you seem to be concurring that the social/political factors are likely enough to prevent such a thing. Personally, I wouldn't want to put all my faith in them. As you point out yourself, these things often change.

[kwais]

Why would Bush make Kerry dissapear? Kerry is a Bush plant. He was hard sought after as the only dude that Bush could beat no matter what.

The only people that would be motivated to make Kerry disapear would be an alert Democrat.

[meep]

Delusions of persecution are bad enough, but it's just sad when they become *fantasies* of persecution.

Is Kerry really so weak that it's easier to imagine a moral victory by something bad happening to him, than--heaven forbid--he actually make some rhetorical or substantive victories vs. Bush?

[Czar]

Scary. Here's why: when laws like this are passed, history seems to show that they can remain dormant for years before being abused in the slippery slope fashion. This kind of legislation is a tool for corruption down the line. Even if you don't think things are bad enough yet, we run a risk in the following decades... it only takes one psycho in the wrong place at the wrong time to make a law like this turn against the nation that bore it.

[zorel]

Czar,

Hence the 2nd Amendment. When the Assault weapons ban expires, gotta stock up 🙂

Fyodor,

I agree with your last post. I was not supporting the decision, or Bush (if he is in a "lock em up" mode). My frustration was with people here imagining Bush arresting them and/or Kerry as the next logical step!

[mak_nas]

Why it is not possible for the President to arrest his opponent is because that would be crossing a line and the PEOPLE won't stand for that. Ten, twenty years ago, the people wouldn't stand for gay marriages. Now many believe it's not objectionable. Hence the progression in court rulings. If 20 years from now the Republic is in such a state that a President feels he/she can get away with arresting the opponent, it might be tried. That is not the case now.

and this is how the mobocracy ushers in a demotic dictatorship. not for a moment should any of us believe that the mob can't be scared into handing over totalitarian power, and even inventing justifications for itself to feel good about it. i'll be surprised if it's more than ten years.

all we have to do is remove the possible impediments. some bad actor will capitalize on the appropriate moment later. counting on culture to stop it from happening in an age of decadent nihilism is a long shot indeed.

[mak_nas]

Why it is not possible for the President to arrest his opponent is because that would be crossing a line and the PEOPLE won't stand for that. Ten, twenty years ago, the people wouldn't stand for gay marriages. Now many believe it's not objectionable. Hence the progression in court rulings. If 20 years from now the Republic is in such a state that a President feels he/she can get away with arresting the opponent, it might be tried. That is not the case now.

and this is how the mobocracy ushers in a demotic dictatorship. not for a moment should any of us believe that the mob can't be scared into handing over totalitarian power, and even inventing justifications for itself to feel good about it. i'll be surprised if it's more than ten years.

all we have to do is remove the possible impediments. some bad actor will capitalize on the appropriate moment later. counting on culture to stop it from happening in an age of decadent nihilism is a long shot indeed.

[thoreau]

In light of a more complete understanding of the ruling I retract my "sky is falling" posts.

[Ruthless]

How about placing him and Theresa under house arrest in one of their humble cottages? Their choice?
Jail would cause a backlash sympathy vote.

[fyodor]

Now that Tim's hit a single, he's swinging for the fences!! 🙂

[thoreau]

The scary thing is that there's absolutely nothing to prevent him from doing this. And given how much "trouble" he's causing during the current "state of emergency", what patriotic American could fault the President for doing this?

[RandyAyn]

Consider this scenario: Somehow John Kerry's security has a major lapse, or else is infiltrated by spooks, allowing Kerry to be whisked away in the night by Bush's goons. Nobody knows where he went, and according to the new powers Bush has acquired, nobody would ever have to know. He could be taken to somewhere we haven't even heard of yet, tortured, killed even, and the Bush Administration technically would never even have to acknowledge they snatched him. Far-fetched for sure, but technically possible. This is why allowing the president to rescind Habeus Corpus is so incredibly dangerous. It gives him virtually unlimited power to silence anyone, anytime, for whatever reasons he sees fit.

[fyodor]

BTW, my own prediction about that previous issue came true too, though I don't know if that's publicly provable yet. I predicted that left-liberals would not see the irony of ads for Moore's films being sanctioned by McCain-Feingold but would instead see it as victimization by their enemies. And while I don't know what's been said by publicly by pundits and such yet, I've already heard a left-liberal friend talk about the efforts of "conservatives" to suppress the film's ads with McCain-Feingold without breathing a word about how maybe this means it's not a good law. But I have an advantage over most of the rest of you's here: I walk amongst them!!

[zorel]

thoreau,

do you still have the tin foil on? Or, are you merely representing the Moore's 'mainstream' ideas these days?

[fyodor]

Hopefully we can all agree that such a scenario isn't likely. Society is ruled by culture as well as law, and our culture is not one that supports the arrest of opposition candidates.

However, culture isn't everything either, and if a sitting president could find a way to make it perfectly legal to arrest his opponent, that should be cause for alarm, or at least concern. Instead of trotting out the old tin foil joke, zorel, perhaps you could tell us why this scenario isn't legally plausible?

[thoreau]

How foolish of me to worry that the government might ever abuse an unprecedented and unconstitutional power! After all, they're from the government and they're here to help.

Oh, and let me add in the obligatory "Of course, it would be much worse if a Democrat were in the White House."

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Far-fetched for sure, but technically possible.

That's when the Europeans would step in and save our democracy.

Al-Guardian and the Beeb would arrange secret flights carrying Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and other top celebrity pundits out of the country. (John Travolta is reportedly on 24/7 standby to help).

Madonna is already in place overseas. She knows what's about to go down.

Then, the plucky democracy-lovers in the EU and the UN would step in.

Fear not, citizen.

[mobile]

Because then he'd have to arrest all the new disgruntled voters who would unelect him in November.

[fyodor]

"all the new disgruntled voters who would unelect him in November."

We can only hope!! 1/2 🙂

[c]

Disappearing Kerry would be too large a step. He would probably start with a candidate from a smaller 3rd party -- probably one that opposed the war or its tactics. The opposition would be cast as "aid and comfort to the enemy," giving the conservative press a starting point to provide political cover.

[jk]

another reason to elect kerry: treat bush to his own medicine.

[crimethink]

Indeed. The decision yesterday did not say that the president cannot simply grab a citizen and throw him/her in jail with no resort to habeas corpus; in fact it rejected the administration's claims that he could. The president has LESS power today than he did on Sunday, not more.