Unitary Executive Theory

[questor]

you know, it's a little sickening to hear the armchair quarterbacks undermining the President and the war effort while offering nothing to improve things. to compare Bush to the Nazi's is despicable. have you had Storm Troopers at your door? had any friends dragged away for the furnaces?
had any changes in your way of life? are you afraid to go out on the street?
why not have the guts to put your views out there so we can see what kind of world yours would be?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by questor

if this is a fact, then why are people bitching? isn't this what the administration did? what are your suggestions to improve the matter?

Nope. What the law says is that you can come back within (I think) 72 hours after the fact and ask permission. This handles any immediate need. What we're finding out about is instances where there was never any intention of asking. Is that okay?

Originally Posted by questor

i assume you think that Bush and Chaney enjoy tortuing others for no particular reason. i wonder if they received videos or photos to heighten the pleasure?

If that's what you think they were doing, that would definitely be worse. But the fact that that is the only response that has been given is a pretty pitiful debate tactic. No one is saying that its being done for "no reason." While some believe that Bush and Cheney are evil, I know that at least Bush does truly believe that there are reasons to do this. This is not the point: the question is why do something when it does not work and when the consequences are worse than the benefits?

Originally Posted by questor

i wonder if they also enjoyed the pictures of the ''insurgents'' beheading innocent people?

You seem here to be advocating torture as a mechanism for retribution. Are we morally superior if we engage in the same methods they do? When we torture, we may not actually know if people have information. Is torture or murder of possibly innocent people always justified, simply because someone on our side may be murdered? Is this moral?

Originally Posted by questor

would you advise catch and release for the insurgents? why should we hold them at all? do you have some polite ways to get info from these people?

Who do we get it from? What are the limits? That 10 year old girl you are torturing may be an indoctrinated insurgent, or she may not know. Are you going to make her "think she is drowning" in order to find out? Where do you draw the line? Or is *any* action okay as long as it potentially might possibly maybe uncover a piece of information that leads to a possible potentially harmful event?

Again WWJD?

Cheers,
Buffy

[questor]

if someone from Al Qeada is calling someone in the US, i want to know NOW, not 72 hours later. are you worried about your 'phone being tapped? i'm not.
but from your post, i assume you see no reason for haste or security.
as for torture, if you think putting a bag over a guy's head and making him stand on a box is torture, we have a large difference of opinion. how many case have you heard of that actually resulted in someone dying, being crippled or badly hurt? don't forget the bad guys have killed over 2000 Americans and maybe 100,000 Iraqis.
i have asked twice now for someone to state better ways for running the war, and so far, i've had no answers.
you are correct about the Bush haters. this hate is virulent and unrelenting. these people would see our country destroyed rather than support Bush.
if i were a Democrat, i would certainly be ashamed of a political party that had the likes of Teddy Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin and their sycophants. fortunately, their influence seems to be waning.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by questor

if someone from Al Qeada is calling someone in the US, i want to know NOW, not 72 hours later. are you worried about your 'phone being tapped? i'm not.

The individuals who comprise and stand as leaders for Al Quaeda are certainly not stupid, and are very unlikely to be calling someone in the US directly to share some vital information regarding a terrorist plot... especially since the break of this story. The key players are much more likely to have some other means for the transmission of information... perhaps even a dedicated satellite for relay of information that they need shared quickly. There are other bits of information that we can glean from those calls (ones that truly involve terroristic discussion) that do come through, and I will concede any day of the week that this is important and useful information to have, but our framers found a system of checks and balances to be vital, and I for one agree whole-heartedly.

I frankly am concerned (not paranoid and sweeping my place for bugs or anything, but apprehensive) about my phone being tapped, my emails being read, cameras being installed in my home (as another 1984-Orwellian possibility further down if we continue with this slippery slope). It makes me wonder if we are truly living up to the ideals at home for which our brave service men and women are over there dying???

As for a better option, that's an amazingly complex question, and I don't have an answer. I recognize that Mr. Bush has many more difficult decisions to make every given day than I ever will. I'm going home tonight and my toughest decision is going to be "do I want pepperoni on my pizza or eggplant?"

Of course it's not easy to make these decisions or come up with some option that everybody loves and agrees with... but that doesn't negate the fact that our laws and society are changing in some very real ways, ways that (to me) seem very disrespectful to the people truly trying to protect us from such credible threats, and that we should be able to continue debating these issues intelligently in hopes of potentially finding that better option about which you asked.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by questor

if someone from Al Qeada is calling someone in the US, i want to know NOW, not 72 hours later. are you worried about your 'phone being tapped? i'm not. but from your post, i assume you see no reason for haste or security.

For some reason you conveniently continue to avoid the fact that the law *does not prevent this*. You might want to think about some of the implications of the point of this Unitary Executive Theory as it means there is basically no reason for any laws whatsoever. *All* issues associated with expediency are handled, I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up except for the fact that it appears as the only defense offered by the backers of this theory, and the point is that this position is clearly dissembling. You should try thinking for yourself!

Originally Posted by questor

as for torture, if you think putting a bag over a guy's head and making him stand on a box is torture, we have a large difference of opinion.

Actually the only case I've mentioned in this thread is "waterboarding" which is all the government will admit to and even in that case, the issue is really where is the line on *who*, would you torture a 10 year old girl if you thought that she *might* be an insurgent?

Originally Posted by questor

how many case have you heard of that actually resulted in someone dying, being crippled or badly hurt?

There sure are lots starting to come out like the discovery of a dozen torturees in the custody of the Iraqi Ministry of Defense which is our proxy there which might be excusable except for the government's formal policy of rendition and turning people who need to be interrogated over to other governments that do practice torture, and in some cases with virtually no evidence putting innocent people away for months. This is not to say that we should not be doing anything, and that you insist on saying that's the only alternative shows that the justification for *unlimited* torture simply isn't there. Moreover you continue to assume that the application of unlimited torture produces results, when its not clear that the benefits outweigh the consequences.

I know that it is difficult to contemplate that this issue is not black and white: that there may be grey lines that have to be drawn. The point that is being made here is that its *not* simple, and ignoring the implications of the government's actions are done at *all* our peril. So when you ask:

Originally Posted by questor

i have asked twice now for someone to state better ways for running the war, and so far, i've had no answers.

You're really not listening to the answers: its all about defining the lines that we go up to and don't pass. And *agreeing* as a society what those limits are. By having such limits, we have moral capital which we can use to win hearts-and-minds, without which we fall into an endless cycle of producing more terrorists in a replay of Hatfields and McCoys.

Originally Posted by questor

you are correct about the Bush haters. this hate is virulent and unrelenting. these people would see our country destroyed rather than support Bush.

That is a hateful comment in itself. Solutions are not found by imposing only what *you* think is the correct course of action, its about finding mutually acceptable solutions. If you fail to see the downsides of the actions you are advocating, you are not participating in a democratic process. You should stop hating people who disagree with you and start finding out what the trade-offs are that will make our society better:

Somewhere somebody must have some sense. Men must see that force begets force, hate begets hate, toughness begets toughness. And it is all a descending spiral, ultimately ending in destruction for all and everybody. Somebody must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate and the chain of evil in the universe. And you do that by love.

-- Martin Luther King, Jr. 1957

Cheers,
Buffy

[questor]

Infinite, it is my understanding that this wiretapping was being done in an attempt to intercept calls made to terrorist cells in this country by Al Qaeda. i don't think anyone wanted to explore your or my life. if this is true, i have no problem with the wiretapping. there is no danger to regular citizens.
G.W.Bush will only be president a couple of more years, but we will still have Patrick Leahy, who has no problems in leaking classified information and Teddy Kennedy , who is now a poster boy for the worst that our Senate has to offer. if you want to worry about something while you're having your pizza, worry about these guys who have no compunction about undermining our country and our military.

[questor]

Buffy, in discussions one can frequently find non-sequiturs and a lack of understanding of cause and effect. also sometimes one can find themselves misquoted.
Buffy, ''You might want to think about some of the implications of the point of this Unitary Executive Theory as it means there is basically no reason for any laws whatsoever. *All* issues associated with expediency are handled,''
i was unaware that Bush had declared himself a ''Unitary Executive''
Buffy, ''For some reason you conveniently continue to avoid the fact that the law *does not prevent this*''
prevent what? if there is a 72 hour wait, there is a problem. if there is no wait, the situation can be handled. are you anticipating some dire consequence of Bush's action directed at the terrorists?
Buffy, '' the issue is really where is the line on *who*, would you torture a 10 year old girl if you thought that she *might* be an insurgent?
has a 10 year old girl been tortured, or is this a non-sequitur?
Buffy, ''and that you insist on saying that's the only alternative shows that the justification for *unlimited* torture simply isn't there.''
have i said somewhere that i advocate unlimited torture or is this a misquote?
Buffy, ''You're really not listening to the answers: its all about defining the lines that we go up to and don't pass. And *agreeing* as a society what those limits are.'
as i said, i'm not hearing answers. i'm hearing platitudes and misquotes.
war is a serious business, and it takes serious people to win. i don't think America has the cojones to win a war anymore. we have no consensus on what has to happen, and we have too many people criticizing the hard decisions that have to be made by the leaders. wars are not tea parties. they are not pleasant, and are actually abhorrent, but don't send brave people in to battle and then undercut them for political reasons.
i must have missed the better solutions to conduct security surveillence and win the war, could you point them out?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by questor

i was unaware that Bush had declared himself a ''Unitary Executive''

Unitary Executive Theory has been discussed in detail by SC Justice-candidate Alito, as well as numerous Justice Department officials (Attorney Generals Ashcroft and Gonzales and White House Council John Yoo (author of the findings justifying the above discussed actions). While Bush himself has not used the term extensively, it has indeed come up as quoted in the above linked WSJ article:

From Bush's Dec. 3, 2003 statement on signing the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act:
"The executive branch shall implement these provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive [emphasis in the original document] branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President judges necessary and expedient."

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here: I'd say that actions speak louder than words.

Originally Posted by questor

prevent what? if there is a 72 hour wait, there is a problem. if there is no wait, the situation can be handled.

You're misstating the law: All the government has to do is contact the secret court within 72 hours of having gotten *and possibly even acted upon* the information! There's no unreasonable limitation at all. Obeying the law is not hard, it does not expose us to any additional harm *whatsoever,* unless of course there are uses being made of it that are illegal and are being done for purposes not related to the war (as the apparent recording of the phone calls of CNN's Chritianne Amanpour to the US would seem to point to).

Originally Posted by questor

are you anticipating some dire consequence of Bush's action directed at the terrorists?

We've already seen it in so far as torture is used by the terrorists to recruit more terrorists, and has slowed cooperation from other countries, even those in the coalition-of-the-willing.

Originally Posted by questor

has a 10 year old girl been tortured, or is this a non-sequitur?

Happened? Who knows? Its secret! It cannot be reviewed. The question is should it be within the range of actions available to the president to protect the country. Writing laws is an exercise in contemplating the possible, not just in proscribing the already committed wrongs. Do you have a position on this? It is relevant to writing the law that should limit this behavior. Or do you believe that *any* action, no matter how horrible, is fair game if it saves American lives? Can you square this with your religious beliefs? Sociopaths like Hitler find themselves with presidential power, and he justified the Holocaust based on the Jews threat to the "survival of the German race." C'mon, you can't think of *any* limits you'd put on presidential power?

Originally Posted by questor

have i said somewhere that i advocate unlimited torture or is this a misquote?

I am asking you that question. The quote here is pointing out that you seem to claim that any limitation on torture at all will put us in grave danger. That would imply that you belive there should be no limitation at all. That would imply that you think that the scenario of torturing a little girl would be just fine. But that's all trains of implication: I'm giving you the opportunity to clarify what if any limits you think there should be and what we should do in the case of the potential 10-year-old terrorist.

Originally Posted by questor

as i said, i'm not hearing answers. i'm hearing platitudes and misquotes.

There are answers here, but they are not always easy to accept: the notion that we may have to allow a few of ours die in the pursuit of not only "victory at any cost" but a "just victory."

Ask Winston Churchill what it took to allow tens of thousands to die in Coventry because winning the war required that he keep secret the intercepts that foretold of that conflagration. Was it a tough decision? You bet. Was it moral? Hard to say, but it was trading off one bad situation for another bad situation. BUT did he discuss it with others? Actually, yes, and as a result of consensus among a small group, not just hand picked partisans, the decision was made to go ahead with this. Unitary Executive policy says there does not have to be any review or even compliance with the law.

Originally Posted by questor

war is a serious business, and it takes serious people to win. i don't think America has the cojones to win a war anymore. we have no consensus on what has to happen, and we have too many people criticizing the hard decisions that have to be made by the leaders. wars are not tea parties.

No one is saying they are tea parties. But can we win them? What about Gulf War I? We won that very handily and got *tremendous* moral authority from it. Do the neo-cons insist that we lost it because we decided that containment was better than replacing Saddam? Yes, but a lot of us--Republicans included--disagree strongly. And not just the "wimpy ones:" oddly enough it comes from the ones who actually have experience with war, and the current war is being conducted by those who don't and who won't listen to those who do, and who call anyone who disagrees with them a traitor as you do here:

Originally Posted by questor

but don't send brave people in to battle and then undercut them for political reasons.

How do discussions about specific tactics and policies "undercut" them? Is any dissention on these topics allowed? Should the president always be able to perform any action without any criticism whatsoever if there is a war on? These questions are what are germane to this thread. You should think about them.

Originally Posted by questor

i must have missed the better solutions to conduct security surveillence and win the war, could you point them out?

Again you're trying to blast the argument with the irrelevant statement that any limits are tantamount to doing nothing. No one is saying that there should be no surveillance. The question is one of having oversight to prevent abuses. Surveillance *is* an important tactic. Is completely indiscriminant surveillance justified? Should there be any limits?

Brain exercise is good for society,
Buffy

[questor]

Buffy, i sense you may have fallen prey to the Great Conservative Conspiracy
Theory, in which the cons are doing all kinds of secret things which, of course, must be bad because they are conservative. i guess the fact that Bush has to obey the ultimate law, the Constitution and will only be in office
a couple of more years in no way lessens the threat he presents to the American way of life. am i to assume that John Kerry or Kennedy, or any of the other democrat demagogues would have conducted a war more to your sensibilities? the shallow depth of thought given to certain issues and the inability to understand cause and effect renders discussion almost useless. there are multitudes of liberal watchdogs shadowing Bush's every move. do you think he will manage to hoodwink them?

[questor]

since the current attacks on Bush center on two issues: wire tap surveillence
and torture, i would like to pose a couple of questions.
1. who were the people who were wire tapped?
2. what were the reasons for the wiretaps?
3. how many wiretaps were performed?
4. what type information was obtained?
5 were lives disrupted, false information disseminated, arrests made, plots uncovered?
6. was the fact that leaks are a constant problem for the administration
a factor in the secrecy?
7. can you trust a person like Pat Leahy to go against his leaking habits
to help our national security? or Teddy? or the Press?

Torture.
1. do we know the particular parts of McCains bill that were opposed by the administration?
2. do we know why the admin opposed them?
3. did Bush or Chaney describe the particular form of torture that was his favorite?
4. are there studies that indicate gentle and humane treatment is the best choice to gather information from murderers?
5. would it not be best to let the prisoners go, so the world would think better of us?
6. is it not best to always fight wars based upon global perception, rather than for your own protection?
7. since our war is illegal, would it not be best to give the prisoners some
money for reparations? this may make them like us and they may tell other insurgents how nice we are.