Quote:
|
Originally Posted by questor
does a law exist if it hasn't been passed? ''the congress proposes, the president disposes.'' an executive executes leadership. the president must be proactive in his duties, especially in wartime. in the absence of statute to the contrary, i would say the president should carry out all neccessary means to protect the citizenry. which protective measures would you curtail?
|
Just to clarify, the issue that has been raised is not if there's *no* law, but rather when there are explicit laws. At the moment there are two issues that have come to light:
- In the case of roving wiretaps, there is an explicit law *and* a well developed mechanism for approving secret wiretaps, and even a "tap first and ask for permission later" provision. The administration has claimed numerous times that they follow this law, but it has now come to light--and the administration has even admitted it--that they have ignored the law and they will continue to do so, although they have yet to explain why the law is an undue burden considering all the exceptions and allowances it provides.
- In the case of John McCain's law prohibiting torture--which the administration fought furiously to stop, including a full-court press by Dick Cheney, and in spite of continuing statements from Bush that " this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad"--at the signing of the law Bush said that he will "construe" the ban "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president ... as commander in chief" meaning he'll ignore it if he feels like it (a point that was confirmed on background by a "senior administration official").
I think you'll find a lot of people who feel that the president should act in emergencies when time is of the essence, and the laws actually do allow for that (to say otherwise is propaganda). The key question here is that given the "war on terror" has been defined in a way that parallels the 40-year "cold war" and the seemingly unending "war on drugs," is using any claim of "war" or "emergency" an excuse to ignore *existing* laws?
May you live in interesting times,
Buffy
