Impeachment is mandatory

[solarbird]

Impeach

President

Bush

Unclaimed Territory should be read here, particularly with regards to commentary in The Federalist nr. 47. Specifically:

By proclaiming the power to ignore Congressional law and to do whatever it wants in the area of national security, it is seizing the powers of the legislative branch. But by blocking courts from ruling on the multiple claims of illegality which have been made against it, the administration is essentially seizing the judicial power as well. It becomes the creator, the executor, and the interpreter of the law. And with that, the powers of all three branches become consolidated in The President, the single greatest nightmare of the founders.

Comments

[flirtaciousj.livejournal.com]

None of these programs to date has violated the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They're not looking to prosecute Citizens, they're trying to find military targets (terrorists).

This flat assertion is one that a number of people from both major political parties would disagree with as a matter of Constitutional Law.

Leaving that aside, there are so many issues here that it is hard to imagine that they will be settled in a LJ thread. A few thoughts:

The balance of civil liberties vs. security is a serious one, and goes back to the founding of the Republic. Franklin's quote about those who surrender liberty for security deserving neither comes to mind. Lincoln suspended Habaeus Corpus in the Civil War. Roosevelt interned the Japanese. Both (especially the latter) ultimately shamed the country, and added little if anything to the prosecution of the war effort. The thought that my grandchildren will be paying reparations to those who may be wrongly interred in Guantanamo doesn't cheer me up much.

Why am I more worried about losing liberty in this "war" than in others? Because depending on how you define a "War on Terror", it never ends. A war between nation-states has a beginning and an ending. Even excesses taken in such a war sunset naturally. We should guard our liberties all the more vigilantly in a situation where there is no prospect of getting them back.

But what they believe in this case doesn't matter it's really more about what the law says and during a time of war giving up national security secrets is a hanging offense. It's called treason. And please don't tell me that they're being patrotic, because they're not.

I don't believe in the disclosure of National Security Secrets, and support the prosecution of people those who do disclose them. If a person's conscience calls upon them to do something, they should be willing to pay the price, and gladly, for that act of conscience. It may be that a trial by jury frees that person, as an act of jury nullification. That's one reason for the right of trial by jury in the first place. We like nullification when John Peter Zenger is walking after tweaking the Crown; we hate it when a jury believes that the Administration is over-reacting to a person following their conscience.

As a corollary to this, the Administration's secrecy bent leads them into this land, because if EVERYTHING is a "National Security Secret", then disclosure of truly dangerous secrets get lumped in with disclosure of (for example) a program that is illegal and ill-conceived in it's conception. In some circumstances the latter disclosure is called whistleblowing.

Helping the enemy in time of war is not patriotic. Thinking so is rather bizarre, and completely illogical.

Every idiot politician and pundit right now seems to be hollering that their opponent is "helping the enemy." Sometimes I suspect that they are all right, which isn't greatly encouraging. Neo-cons and Al Quaeda seem at times to share a similar enthusiasm for a clash of civilizations. Somewhat naively, I tend to think that the vast majority of politicians, pundits, and people in this country are on the same side, or at least seeking the same ends. This includes people whose views I strongly disagree with. Where we differ is how best to achieve those ends.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Look, here is my big problem with these people exposing national security secrets in a time of war: They did it to further their own political goals and they don't give a fuck about 'the people' or 'the country'.

How do I know this?

Simple, if they had cared about the country, rather than running right to the newspapers and spreading it all about they would have approached a couple of members of Congress, and asked -them- to investigate it. Congress could have provided the check and balance necessary in our country, While at the same time keeping the issue secret and not comprimising National Security, unless they found it was wrong and illegal and not in the best interest of the people of the United States.

That's what -I- would have done, and what I like to believe any really patriotic person would have done. There are a good many Democrats in Office who would have investigated this seriously, and kept their mouths shut unless they had proof of lawbreaking.

As for the War, well it's really not against terror, it's against Islam, and it isn't going to end until either Islam reforms like other religions did to become less violent, Islam is wiped out, or we become muslim.

[emmacrew.livejournal.com]

As for the War, well it's really not against terror, it's against Islam, and it isn't going to end until either Islam reforms like other religions did to become less violent, Islam is wiped out, or we become muslim.

We all know how perfectly that worked during the Crusades. Ayep.

[foibos.livejournal.com]

You're going to wage war on Islam until it is wiped out or becomes less violent?

[banner.livejournal.com]

Umm, I guess you haven't been paying attention. They're waging war on us, either they reform (which would have to be driven internally), we wipe them out (ie win), or they win and we become an Islamic state.

They're the ones driving this, they defined the situation. Those are the only outcomes that will put an end to this war. Islam is a religion of conquest and war, always has been. A reformation would be nice, but I'm not expecting to see one.

[foibos.livejournal.com]

No, Islam isn't waging a war against the US (or anyone, really).

[flashfire.livejournal.com]

Finally, a conservative who openly admits this really is a war on Islam instead of hiding it behind the "stamp out terrorism" mantra.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Un Dude, all Conservatives admit this is a war on Islam. Only politicians and people with their heads in the sand think otherwise. Islam is what attacked us, Islam is what motivates 99 percent of all terrorism in the world for like the last 20 years. They're on a holy war, they preach it everywhere, even in Mosques in the US. They're not going to stop until Islam rules the world.

Considering the way Islam treats women, non-muslims, practices slavery, limits freedom of speach, executes homosexuals and kills people just for the hell of it, I'm surprised that YOU as a Liberal won't admit that either. Or support it. We can sit here and argue until the cows come home, but we both know we'll never do more than use words. If one of us was a muslim however, the other would be worried about being killed, Because Islam teaches that it's okay to do that to those who criticize Islam, and nearly ALL Musliims either practice it or support it.

If the Democratic Party came out tomorrow and recognized the fact that this is a war against Islam and that were going to fight Islam I'd vote the straight ticket all the way down. I've seen what Islam does to people, it turns them into animals. You think Christian Fundies are bad? Try the Islamic ones, they'll kill you.

[flashfire.livejournal.com]

Bzzzzz. I'm not a Liberal. Libertarian here, after evaluating the general ideas of each platform. As many problems as I have with the general conservative position, I have just as many with the liberal side.

And no, not all conservatives will admit this is a war on Islam. You're one of the first I've EVER seen come right out and say it, and I've seen a lot. Most have tried to hide it behind the guise of needing to stamp out terrorism in all forms, doing a pretty poor job of hiding it in the process as it's not just radical muslims who are responsible for terror in the world.

Anyhow, I'd rather they just be honest about it and say it like you did.

Either way, this has been viewed as a holy war for quite a while, especially in the Middle East.

Religion sucks.

But, I could show you a number of muslims who are against what the people in the Middle East are about.

[avram]

Islam is what motivates 99 percent of all terrorism in the world for like the last 20 years.

Ever heard of the Tamil Tigers?

I know, it sounds like a sports team. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or Tamil Tigers for short, or Tamil New Tigers when they were founded in 1972, were the most aggressive group of suicide bombers in the world up until the the Bush administration converted Iraq into a terrorist training camp. As of May 2000, the Tigers were responsible for five times as many suicide attacks as all other terrorist groups put together. They invented the suicide vest in 1991 — the Palestinians got the idea from the Tamil Tigers.

And they’re not Muslims. They’re revolutionary Marxists from a Hindu culture, seeking independence for the Tamil people of Sri Lanka from the Sinhala Buddhists.

American Conservative had an interview last year with Robert Pape, of the University of Chicago, who’s assembled a database of every known suicide attack since 1980, and published a book about the phenomenon called Dying to Win. His conclusion is that “overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.” He does think religion is involved, in that suicide-terrorism is more likely when the occupiers and occupied are of different religions.