Lucius Cornelius Bush
Andrew Cory
I made a foolish bet with Dean, and this post is my forfeit. Which is fine. I really do think that History will vindicate President Bush. After all, Gaius Julius Caesar is considered a hero...
American democracy is manifestly failing. The incentive structure which used to provide for good—or at least adequate—leadership is now providing for its opposite. At the best of times congress is as frozen as ANWAR. At worst they eye taxpayers like wolves to uninspected beef. Congress has been halted by partisan disputes; Intercine, insipid, incapable, inflicting incalculable damage upon America’s ability to operate.
In many was the judicial system was even worse. Judges interpreted not the public law, but rather concepts of justice. Their own concepts of justice. Judges have looked to foreign law and non-constitutional ideas to impose a supposed morality upon the American people. Congress sat by. The Presidency was complacent.
Bush was different. He used his own keen ideas of right and wrong to force decisions. His electoral mandate gave him the moral imprimatur to become—in his own words—the decider. He has used his own brand of moral clarity to define our age. Rather than letting problems and issues be debated in a constrained congress, he took it upon himself to bring security to American families. His issuance of secret decrees creating secret courts and secret laws created a whole new paradigm for American governance.
Bush’s decisions systematically reduced the legislative and judicial branches into irrelevance. They became the vestigial organs of public discourse. It would not be for Bush to transform the Republic, but he left the tools in place. When those tools were used, he was remembered as the American Sulla to another’s Caesar. History remembers Caesar, and Sulla, with fondness—it will recall Bush the same way...
Related Posts (on one page):
Hah?
You had me going there for a minute, Andrew, but with that whopper we see your heart is not really in it!
The only true statement in this post is the first sentence.
IMO the failure of leadership cited as the sign that this is happening is a feature of our system rather than a bug. Vibrant political leadership isn't necessary because government isn't the only game in town.
In this view of our system strong leadership is an aberration rather than the standard.
Huh? You've been reading too much DKos.
Andrew Jackson, now he made the judicial branch irrelevant ("Now let him enforce it."). But he still had to deal with Congress.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.
FDR tried to stack the Court with cronies by changing the very structure of the judiciary. And he had MUCH larger majorities than Bush in Congress which were almost totally compliant. He broke the 2-term precedent. He wiretapped not just the press (which he also threatened to take over if they gave unfavorable coverage) but his political opponents.
Bush's assertion of executive power has been pretty mild. It basically consisted of holding a few terrorists without trial and spying on some others.
I assume this means "the people I want in office aren't being elected."
There is one answer to the problem of legislative malfeasance though, and that is the FairTax. Money is the fuel that drives politicians. When you take the fuel away from them, the fire dwindles. And, by the way, that's not partisan. One group is just as corrupt as the other.
Or you could get off your ass, do some research, open your eyes, open your mind, get a little sense of perspective, and actually do the topic you were supposed to do.
You set the terms:
You didn't defend the viewpoint Dean chose, you satirized it (and did a piss poor job at that -- might as well have just cut and pasted from dKos). You didn't choose to veto, at least; but if you had, we'd've laughed you off the thread for saying that the topic is "too offensive" for your delicate sensibilities.
Honestly, Andrew, if you're not prepared to honor your losses, don't make bets.
and some non-terrorists. In fact, roughly a quarter of all those held at GitMo have been found not-guilty by our own system. I shudder at the thought that any of them have been tortured...
I've said more than a few unkind words about Andrew Jackson. If there had been war crimes tribunals back in the day, Jackson really ought to have been a defendant at one...
Lincoln gave in-- and admitted that he was wrong. And so forth...
In other words, the system worked.
Well, since no one has been tortured at Guantanomo Bay, you can rest easy.
Heh, I wonder since our civilian court systems finds about 1/3 of all people before it "not guilty" that means our system is hosed as well.
I wasn't actually being satirical. That's something of a misconception. I do honestly believe that if America does become an Empire, this is how Bush will be remembered. Indeed, I believe the only way that Bush will be remembered fondly is if absolute rule by a single person is enshrined into our basic law. So that's why I wrote what I wrote...
Shit happens. This is war. Figure that out.
Except the system still manages to try some, and find some innocent.
Get your head out of your Kos. There was no torture at Guantanamo.
Got a cite for those found not guilty and not being enemy combatants being let at Guantanamo?
That's because you're a naive young waif who gets all your opinions from Democrat talking points.
Which has about as much chance as you joining the Supreme Court next year.
Where do you get your delusions?
Seriously, I would go to your college and demand a refund on your tuition. You didn't get an education, and you didn't learn to think. You just got indoctrinated.
There is, I suppose, a reasonable space for dispute about what is meant by the term Empire. But US behavior on the international scene is not as different from that of the 19th century empires as we would like to think; and, in an era when the United States is (a) clearly the dominant hegemonic power, (b) using its power to support and/or enforce an international order largely of its design, (c) and using its power to interfere in the domestic decisions of certain other states, it's *really unclear* to me that the term "Empire" is an unreasonable description.
President Bush doesn't even rule over his own State Department or CIA. Not an emperor. And when he called for allies in Iraq, only 43 nations joined up, so he apparently can't control France or Russia or China or...
In our system, nobody has supreme power; and on the world stage, the best we can say is we're the biggest power. That hinders us more than it helps, half the time.
Our territory is smaller than it was 60 years ago. Were we an empire in WII? I haven't heard anyone argue that.
What country do we have authority over, other than our own?
The only way to call us an empire is to gin up a phoney definition to fit your agenda.
Ain't gonna happen, no matter what the zany left thinks.
The thing is, Gitmo exists in order to give us a place to act outside the bounds of the Geneva convention. Seriously: there are places in Nevada that would be just as good from a physical security standpoint. But we're doing it outside the US because Bush believes that US treaty obligations end at US shores...
What cites will you trust about torture at Gitmo? Here's Human Rights Watch writing about it. Do you trust them? Here's Townhall gloating about the same. Waterboarding, BTW, dates back to the inquisition. It's torture. We're doing it...
As far as being unable to return home take a look at this piece on our allies hameful treatment of those we ourselves have treated shamefully...
And if our allies won't take people back, that's not an indictment of what we're doing. (Nice how you tried to twist it that way, though.) Rather, it says that our allies suspect that we've been too charitable in our trials, letting free some prisoners that our allies believe are truly a threat.
As I understand Ferguson's argument —- and it's been some time since i've read Colossus, the theory is that:
(a) the US in effect rules over Iraq and Afghanistan;
(b) the US effectively has veto power over the political decisions of a large number of countries beyond that.
In particular, it's (b) above on which he bases the argument: the US is sufficiently powerful that, while it can't order day-to-day affairs in Cairo, many countries have their choices and options effectively constrained by US desires — and that, while that makes the US weak compared with earlier empires, it remains an empire.
As for this:
...absolute rule by a single person is enshrined into our basic law.
I agree that this is not going to happen, and that the use of the word 'Empire' in that sense is misleading.
And to take your words Martin and do a little twirl with them (which we slantways folks love doing):
Shit happens under the right conditions.
Which is why I NEVER rule out that our country will morph into something else (maybe an empire). The future is a devious thing...
Which is kind of my point, when you think about it.
That was just ludicrously, breathtakingly lame.
You obviously either have no honor, no imagination, or no knowledge of history.
So, what is your major malfunction?
"The thing is, Gitmo exists in order to give us a place to act outside the bounds of the Geneva convention."
is incorrect on several counts. The first, of course, is that the Geneva conventions specifically apply to uniformed combatants, which does not include those who deny uniforms AND try to blend in to a civilian population. Doing such creates a hazard for civilians, which is part of the reason the Geneva Conventions are important.
The second is that in spite of the fact that we are not bound by the Geneva Conventions in this issue, by the reports I have seen (from disinterested observers from foreign countries), we are not violating them anyway.
I've noticed this problem in a lot of political discussions because they get heated before the facts are set out: Incorrect premises will not lead to correct conclusions, and people who do not agree on what the facts are will get nowhere in an argument because they're arguing past each other. And in cases where there is NOT enough information to make a solid conclusion (global warming, anyone?) the discussions get rabid without doing any good.
(And in a nutshell, that's why I don't do political comments much: I'm too lazy to get my facts all in line, and I don't dare write unless I have them!)
So why not simply bring them into a jail somewhere stateside? How do you determine that someone is "disinterested"? Who would have to come forth and say "This is going on and it's torture" and you would say "that source is unimpeachable. I now believe that it's torture"...
As far as I can tell, it's well understood that we _are_ engaging in waterboarding at Gitmo. The debate is over whether or not such a thing constitutes "torture". To me, it's pretty unambiguous that it does...
I believe we're committing torture over there because I believe Human Rights Watch when they say so. And Amnesty International. If one of them said
"we were wrong, our bad" I'd blush a lot and retract my statements. If (say) the German or French or Indian or British governments said that the prisoners were being well treated, I'd also blush and say "my bad". I might even say it in Latin...
But as it happens, I've heard radio interviews with people being released from Gitmo who said they were made to feel as if they were drowning. I heard that with my own ears. Perhaps they were lying. But it fits a patern...
Man, you really do have no imagination. If you really, truly can't figure out why keeping enemy combatants outside of the jurisdiction of US courts (where appeals drag on forever, are extremely expensive, and plenty of judges are quite happy to be political rather than legal with their opinions) might be beneficial even if they don't intend to burn people's eyes out and hack off their fingers, then perhaps you should stick to subjects where you're not radically blind.
That would be like me believing that the reason why democrats are against photo ID to vote is because they know that without dead people each voting 75 times for democrats, they'll lose by margins of 40%. I may not have a high opinion of the reasoning most democrats I know provide, or that the national ones provide, but I know that the cartoonish explanations should be saved for jokes.
Here's a good way to start developing some imagination: try to figure out why Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.
Also, consider the case of Lynn whats-her-name who passed communications between a terrorist in prison and his network. Consider also that whether or not you think that there's a war on (I don't know), the military does. At least consider the idea that they're not just faking so that Bush can personally charge more for crude oil at the gas pumps.
I.e. try considering the idea that people actually believe what they say that they believe. They may not, but it's a good intellectual exercise, at least.
See, this is where you're being manipulated by clever word choice on the part of those who aren't afraid to lie to get your support. There are many treatments all collectively lumped under the term "waterboarding". What Tunisia did risked real drowning and real physical harm. The technique we used only provoked the gag reflex and the fear response. There's a difference.
But I guess it's torture because Howard Dean says it is. See? Anyone can play those childish games. They prove nothing.
I know, Tyrone, I know. But it's clear that the boy can only think in binary, good-evil sort of patterns, so I have to simplify for him. He's not ready for nuance and uncertainty.
Look, coercion takes many forms. It includes intimidation, temptation, stress, fear, and many different techniques. Including injury. But you can't say that all forms of coercion are torture. The fact that they were afraid means they were coerced. The fact that they suffered no real damage means they weren't tortured.
If you want to say you're against all coercive interrogation, well, you'd be a fool, but at least logically coherent. But to call something torture when it's not is just a cheap way to win political points.
That's the point of water boarding. It's not supposed to feel like you're in no danger; if it felt great, it wouldn't make people talk.
However, you'll notice that they weren't drowned. No harm, no foul.
Perhaps we need a definition? A quick look at Wikipedia tells me that the UN Defines torture as
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, [...]
Note that it does include "mental" suffering. I suppose it boils down to what the definition of "severe" is in this instance. In my mind, (I grant that this a bit circular) if someone is committed to their cause, and they are induced by pain into selling out that cause, the pain was torture. I admit that reasonable people may disagree...
I do think that it's unquestionable: if someone thinks they're about to drown, it's torture. Especially if there is a real chance the "administrator" might screw up and cause an actual death...
BTW: Dave: I agree completely:
But for some reason, people seem to hate gridlock, and crave an executive able to cut through it. In the future dictatorship I was imagining, history books would be written to reflect this bias.
The withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile treaty is certainly defensible-- Bush's decision to implement an immature missile defense system is not.
Hell! the USA PATRIOT act isn't even necessarily a bad idea-- the administration's refusal to tell us how well it's working and how it's being used leaves me fearing the worst...
And so forth and so on.
Will you write that on a blackboard about 100 times until it sinks in?
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Article 2
Article 4
Article 5
An enemy combatant is someone who is not complying with Geneva Conventions. That is why we call them "enemy combatants." IT IS WHAT THE TERM MEANS!
The GENEVA CONVENTION allows you to shoot enemy combatants ON SIGHT, and no prisoner of war status. You don't even have to recognize the white flag of surrender! They are entitled to NOTHING.
If they are following the rules of the Geneva Convention, then we refer to them as SOLDIERS, and then they get all the protections of the Geneva Convention.
Cool how it works, huh? We have one word that means one thing and another terms that means something else.
If they want to be protected by the Geneva Convention then they can follow the rules, like get a damn uniform.
The REASON we don't shoot the on sight, even though we have every right to do so (and comply with the Geneva Conventions in doing so) is because it is BAD for OUR soldiers. It is very difficult for them to recover from war when they do that. In addition, we get information from enemy combatants.
And they GET a trial. They go before a military tribunal, which has been the practice for, uhh... TWO HUNDRED YEARS! And they have multiple methods of appeals both on their continued captivity and their sentence through circuit court and the U.S. Supreme Court to appeal the circuit court's decision.
Article I, Section 8:
They don't go before a U.S. criminal court because it is outside of our justice system. It is a MILITARY matter, as specified by law and the Constitution.
A) who mentioned the Geneva conventions?
B) as long as your bring it up: How on earth did the Taliban not fall under article 4 section 2A-2D? they sure as hell seemed to be distinguishable and have leaders...
C) The geneva convention is a set of reciprocal guidelines. Even if the Taliban were not signatories, we can still respect the conventions and presume that they will. When we fail to respect the conventions, we have to presume that they will also fail to respect the conventions. In other words, when we torture Talibani who fall into our hands, we give the greenlight for the Taliban to torture Americans. I'd hate to be the American politician who says that it's ok to torture Americans...
A) who mentioned the Geneva conventions?
You did.
Andrew Cory:
B) as long as you[r] bring it up: How on earth did the Taliban not fall under article 4 section 2A-2D? they sure as hell seemed to be distinguishable and have leaders...
The Taliban? You are kidding, right? We're talking about the same Taliban that was murdering Hazaras, right? I think you need to read 2A-2D again. It isn't one from column A. It is ALL of them. What part of "genocide" demonstrates the Taliban's compliance with Geneva?
But you've created a straw man. We haven't tortured anyone. Torture: Actions that cause death or mutilation.
You said the words "reciprocal" but you are still not getting it. They must "respect the laws and customs of war." You don't demonstrate your intentions to be binding to Geneva by hiding war criminals. They REFUSED to hand over WAR CRIMINALS. Nations cut diplomatic ties with Afghanistan for their refusal to hand over the criminals (and stop hiding them). That, in itself, was a violation of the Conventions. They were aiding and abetting WAR CRIMINALS. Had they arrested them and kept them in prison until they could be taken before a military tribunal, you MIGHT have an argument, but they didn't do that.
So, when the cop who pulled me over asks for my driver's license and registration, and I hand them over, he's tortured me? I didn't want to do it, and he used intimidation and mental suffering (or at least the anticipation of physical suffering, which is itself a form of mental suffering, very akin to feeling like you might drown) to extract information from me.
And I doubt that water boarding is very dangerous, at least when performed by the US — we do it to our own troops all the time (at least the ones who are likely to be taken as POWs, such as pilots). Which, incidentally, robs your entire point about US soldiers. Those likely to be taken POWs will have been put through the sorts of interrogation techniques which we use already. If the enemy were to water board them (in the safe and controlled manner we do it), it would not be a new experience, however unpleasant it would be.