Unitary Executive Theory

[GAHD]

Somehow I'm thinking the democrats would have stopped the war and left Chaney-oil high & dry once the populous destroyed his pipelines in their country. Well, that's if he didn't cut them in on it too.

Edit: That's exactly what she's saying questor; The president doesn't need to tell ANYONE Who What When Where or Why.
edit2: the question is...Should they?

[questor]

i think what she is saying is that the NSA needs to check with the courts or with Teddy Kennedy before they do anything to protect us.

as far as the Iraqi pipelines, i hope we do get some money from them for saving those ungrateful Iraqis from getting slaughtered. they have done damn little to help us or show any gratitude.

[GAHD]

Originally Posted by questor

as far as the Iraqi pipelines, i hope we do get some money from them for saving those ungrateful Iraqis from getting slaughtered. they have done damn little to help us or show any gratitude.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Buffy

So gang, is this a good way to run a country? Why or why not? Is it still okay if a Democrat is the president? Is this going to be yet another interesting experiment in the law of unintended consequences? Is this the wave of the future? Are there parallels here to other governments in recent history? Can you say Baathist?

Well Buffy, I think that you and I are cut from very similar cloth. One of the differences that I think we have is our level of libertarianism. And you make me jealous with your mastery of the written word.

Is this a good way to run a country? This is not how we are running the country, this is how we are waging war against an unconventional and determined enemy. The administration has informed the Senate Intelligence Committee about these actions from the beginning to insure that appropriate political entities outside the Whitehouse would know that it was happening.

Is it still okay if a Democrat is the president? Yes, in fact it was used by both Democratic presidents from my lifetime. (Technically I was born during the Johnson administration, and while I am sure it is safe to say he used it, I have not read any accounts of that.)

Is this going to be yet another interesting experiment in the law of unintended consequences? Yes, but not because of abuse of power. The lesson is going to be that for the chance of short term political gain certain elected officials will sacrifice our ability to perform these secret war operations. You used the example of Winston Churchill in a later post, and the fact that there were thousands of deaths because he chose to keep a secret that was of greater strategic importance for victory than the immediate need to save lives. In WWII the word on the street was "Loose lips sink ships". What is the slogan of today?

Are there parallels here to other governments in recent history? Yes there are parallels, but they are usually made in the context of spying on your own people because of a domestic agenda of secret police style rule. That is not the case here by any stretch. We are using this as a tool for national security. Not a method to weed out our political opponents. Is there a single political opponent of the president who has any cause to be shy about it?

Can you say Baathist? In this case we have not a single US citizen who has been affected in any fashion for these acts taking place. And you are comparing the wiretaps of phone calls to suspected enemies of the state to the Batthist party's slaughter and terrorizing of innocent people to rule through fear? That type of unfounded comparison is unhealthy for maintaining respect for the hard decisions that our elected representatives need to make on our behalf. Regardless of the political party in power.

I am with you on the need to be vigilant in preserving our liberties. But I would caution you to make more fair comparisons about our governments actions and what they represent.

Always good typing to you Buffy,

Bill

[Buffy]

Unfortunately, so much of this debate is based on "talking points" on both sides. That we're cut from the same cloth is not surprising Bill: we're in the middle of the road! Yah, I'm a libertarian (that's why I'm a Repubican!), but even from the middle, its important to note that the administration is not just "protecting us" they've been either paranoid or so unbelievably self-righteous about their beliefs that it is concerning even for those of us who are not "Bush-haters"--whatever the heck that is (evidence of paranoia I would suggest).

Here are some points where I see facts that differ that concern me:

Originally Posted by webenton

this is how we are waging war against an unconventional and determined enemy.

That's the talking point talking: There's no question that al Qaeda is unconventional, but when the vast majority of the experts (including McCain) who are experts at torture and international relations say "this is not worth it," then its a really good idea to listen. I know there are those who feel we need to blindly trust the man in charge--I do back the notions inherent in representative democracy--but when those who are leading won't listen to anyone with any experience, its worrying. It gets even more worrying when this sort of problem is addressed in a transparently patronizing manner: Bush had a big photo op with former Secretaries of State and Defence that lasted *10 minutes* giving each of the attendees *23 seconds* of input! Now I'm starting to get scared.

Originally Posted by webenton

The administration has informed the Senate Intelligence Committee about these actions from the beginning to insure that appropriate political entities outside the Whitehouse would know that it was happening.

That's actually *not* true, even if you call "informing the SIC" talking only to the Republican's on the committee--which has been the common practice in this administration rather than bringing in the ranking members of *both* parties on the committee which was the practice before Bush.

This is why even *Arlen Spector* broached the possibility of these actions being cause for impeachment this weekend. The administration is not even keeping *partisans* in the loop. That's why this is fundamentally different than Kennedy trying to assasinate Castro, which was backed by many in congress. If you're looking for an example of Democrats doing this, the only one I can really think of is the Gulf of Tonkin coverup (for you young'uns, Johnson used an attack on a ship supposedly in international waters off Vietnam as an excuse to ramp up the war, when the ship was definitely in North Vietnamese territory and may not even have been shot at), but that sure turned out badly eh? And I don't think I need to talk about Nixon...

Originally Posted by webenton

Yes, but not because of abuse of power. The lesson is going to be that for the chance of short term political gain certain elected officials will sacrifice our ability to perform these secret war operations.

So you're calling John McCain, Arlen Specter and even Orrin Hatch "seekers of short-term political gain?" Sure if its just the Democrats harping about this, but when people in the *same party* start having qualms--and remember, we're talking about stalwarts in safe seats--then its time to start thinking that maybe we should be questioning the wisdom of these actions.

Originally Posted by webenton

In WWII the word on the street was "Loose lips sink ships". What is the slogan of today?

What should it have been when the Republicans were saying "no nation building" when Somalia or Yugoslavia were major initiatives of the Clinton administration? Was it not okay for them to question those policies?

Unfortunately, by slandering the "opposition" as "traitors" the extremists in the Republican party have made it impossible for us to "be on the same side" and disagree. I think the slogans of WWII and earlier were effective because the attitude then was of a common goal among all Americans, in spite of--how soon we forget--strong opposition to the war by Republicans, Democrats, Nazi sympathizers (Lindbergh!) and Communists alike. We all swung together without a single "I told you so, traitor" like we hear from the O'Reilly's and Coulters of today. Its the *hostility* and *divisiveness* of the *tone* of the debate that are causing problems. I think we'd all find we have more to agree about than to disagree about if we'd all give it a break and *talked* about it.

Originally Posted by webenton

We are using this as a tool for national security. Not a method to weed out our political opponents.

Talking point again. My example is not Nixon-style break-into-Ellsberg's-therapist's-office: its about fair differences in *policy* beliefs. To reiterate, my example is one where a future administration believed that confiscating weapons larger than say a .22 were "essential to national security" and used the NSA to track everyone who had guns and locate them. Just as Bush has done--and as you'll see in a discussion on the topic here--one can interpret the second amendment in a way that would construe this to be legal. Because the then administration knew that would be unpopular (as the current one seems to have guessed about this issue), it would be done in secret. Would you agree to it then?

Originally Posted by webenton

Can you say Baathist?

A dangerous talking point: if you act like them, even if its for the right cause (can you say "ends justify the means?" Oooh, sounds like the SDS!), you have compromised your moral superiority. It costs in both internal and world-wide perceptions of American motives and morality. You need to put these costs into your calculus.

Originally Posted by webenton

In this case we have not a single US citizen who has been affected in any fashion for these acts taking place.

Well, yeah, so far, but the fact of the matter is that the *method* is to listen to *everything*. This is not "we don't have time to find every phone the bad guys are going to use", this is "we have to record and listen to every call that crosses the US border." The notion that "people who don't break the law have nothing to be afraid of" has never been a popularly supported notion even among conservatives (especially those caught by speed trap cameras with their paramours), but yes, there may be an excuse for it in situations like this, but again, that's *not* the issue: its that there is *no* oversight going on, even with those predisposed to agree with the assessment! That's why Specter is calling this activity impeachable. The reason why he and others who are *friends* of the administration are concerned is that there is *no* excuse whatsoever not to keep them in the loop, unless at the root, the activities *really are* bad. Or unless there really is a group who thinks that the president is imperial and should have no oversight at all, which is both bad now and bad for the prescendent it sets.

Its really important to understand that the argument here is not academic: these are not the actions of an administration that even seems to believe in democracy let alone being absolutely cavalier about being an international bully.

Thanks for the reasonable discussion, Bill!

Cheers,
Buffy

[questor]

in a discussion like this, i would say that a few questions would be in order.

1. who has the NSA actually listened to? does anyone know?
2. what is done with the information?
3. who has been harmed or compromised in this endeavor?
4. how many plots or threats have been discovered?
5. what are the true constitutional executive powers in wartime?
6. do we not already have congressional oversight that has been consulted on this matter?
7. what should be the action taken against a member of the oversight committee who is guilty of leaking these national security findings?
8. seeing the necessity for immediate action on telephone or email transmission, what would be the better way to accomplish this mission?

i think Bush is determined that no more attacks will occur on his watch. it seems the opponents don't care as long as it would hurt Bush.
for the ''slippery slopers'', the masters of non-sequiturs, i don't see how good surveillence is going to ruin the country. i can see how more attacks can severly damage us.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Our current Supreme Court nominee in the US was quoted recently discussing this theory: "makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that, the president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power -- the whole thing."...

So gang, is this a good way to run a country? Why or why not? Is it still okay if a Democrat is the president? Is this going to be yet another interesting experiment in the law of unintended consequences? Is this the wave of the future? Are there parallels here to other governments in recent history? Can you say Baathist?

Sometimes I wonder if we might be better off with a board of executives. An odd number of individuals like the Supreme Court with one of them designated as the Chief Executive. Imagine the polarization our court would suffer if the Supreme Court consisted of one lone judge, the final arbiter of the judicial branch. Imagine trying to find that one person with an ideology suitable enough to satisfy the people.

In neither the legislative branch or the judicial branch have we entrusted the power to a lone individual. Why then have we done so with the executive branch? We have an entire branch of government wielded by one person, a person that is not a representative of the people. Why should we keep playing this partisan see-saw game with choosing a President? All we keep getting is one extreme or the other. Our choices in the last election cycle boiled down to a right wing religious zealot versus a left wing communist socialite. Should we really allow either of these ideologies to rule independantly?

Me thinks our ship would get to our destination sooner if we didn't keep alternating captains that only know how to steer left or right. This constant zig zag is taking a much higher toll on our fuel than if we just found a heading in the middle and kept it on course.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by questor

as far as the Iraqi pipelines, i hope we do get some money from them for saving those ungrateful Iraqis from getting slaughtered. they have done damn little to help us or show any gratitude.

You need to find some alternative sources of information. Judging 25 million people from the actions of 10,000 foreign insurgents is not a quality assessment of the Iraqis gratitude. Unfortunately, this is all the general media wants to cover because the bad news from Iraq generates more money than the good news

[InfiniteNow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_faction

The existence of a factional system can have serious negative consequences for a broader organisation.

If factional strife becomes intensive and public, the broader organisation may suffer from perceptions of disunity. Taken one step further, if the conflict is particularly severe, it may cause ruptures within the organisation that seriously impede its effectiveness, leading to break-up or collapse of the broader organisation.

To avoid harm to the broader organisation, factional operations are usually conducted under strong secrecy and with minimal public scrutiny. This, however, can lead to the proliferation of unethical behaviour. Warfare between the factions may lead to tactics such as ballot box-stuffing, stack-outs, membership fraud, and other generally fraudulent conduct. Individuals who abandon (or “rat on”) a faction may be subject to intense personal vendettas where their former comrades go about sabotaging their careers.

A climate of intense factional conflict can also motivate individuals to focus on attacking their factional enemies rather than furthering the broader organisation.

The article also expressed some positive aspects of factions, but those were generally limited to groups whose goal was to improve society and the lives of everyone, all life... that "broader organisation" which encompasses us all.

Ultimately, it is a numbers game. What's good for one will not be good for another, and you just have to try as best you can to obtain the maximum returns, but this (from my limited perspective) does not currently appear to be the underlying and prominent motivation of our decision makers for the acts being discussed in this thread.



http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../i_ins.01.html

Originally Posted by Taken from a Transcript from October 2002 aired on CNN

IBRAHIM: There is Saddam the madman. His hubris is unequaled and his ego is unequaled, and he absolutely takes no advice.

UTLEY: Saddam Hussein's cold, brutal side was on display at this meeting of Iraq's top officials in 1979 as he seized total power and eliminated possible rivals.

In a calm voice, he claimed he had uncovered a plot. One by one, he read of names. 66 men were taken out of the hall. 22 were executed, the rests disappeared into prisons. Some were long-time friends and allies. With a wave of the cigar in his hand, Saddam Hussein sealed their fates. And then the tyrant wept.

No doubt he knows the fate of those who live and rule by the sword, who are surrounded by yes-men in fear of their lives. The tyrant becomes dangerously isolated, a loner.

I am not arguing that Bush is executing people and then weeping, but the similarities are becoming more and more disconcerting... IMHO

[TheFaithfulStone]

Hey questor, your tough questions have easy answers.

It's like a survey!


1. who were the people who were wire tapped? who knows. maybe you. maybe saddam.

2. what were the reasons for the wiretaps? who knows. maybe they were plotting an attack. maybe they opposed the war.

3. how many wiretaps were performed? who knows. maybe a few justifiable ones. maybe they've been listening in on 10% of all us phone calls.

4. what type information was obtained? who knows. maybe some stuff about plan hijackings. maybe a list of people who agreed with your aunt martha when she said she disagreed with the war.

5 were lives disrupted, false information disseminated, arrests made, plots uncovered? who knows. it's illegal to tell people if you've been arrested under certain security circumstance, and we DO take people to other countries to hold them.

6. was the fact that leaks are a constant problem for the administration
a factor in the secrecy? loaded question, but who knows. maybe they were concerend investigations would be compromised. maybe they were excercising most of the (b) options above and knew it would be bad news if word were to get out.

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? can you trust the federal government to always have your best interest at heart ant to never abuse it's powers or act in inappropriate ways? like japanese internment camps? or watergate? or dinking interns in the oval office?

Torture.
1. do we know the particular parts of McCains bill that were opposed by the administration? Yes. It banned torture and inhumane treatment of US Prisoners.

2. do we know why the admin opposed them? No.

3. did Bush or Chaney describe the particular form of torture that was his favorite?p No, but the Pentagon likes waterboarding.
http://www.alwayson-network.com/comm...P12780_0_6_0_C

4. are there studies that indicate gentle and humane treatment is the best choice to gather information from murderers? No, but there are plenty that say torture doesn't work either.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan11.html

[i]5. would it not be best to let the prisoners go, so the world would think better of us?[i] This is a non-sequiter, and has nothing to do with torture. Of the 48,000 people or so that the US has imprisoned in Iraq, less than 1/2 a percent have been charged with a crime. It might be nice of us to let the INNOCENT people go.

6. is it not best to always fight wars based upon global perception, rather than for your own protection? Again, nothing to do with torture... but uh.. yeah. In a guerilla war there are two ways to win - you either make every one so afraid of you that no-one dares move. Unfortunately, eventually, you lose this way when people realize that you can't kill them all Or, you make people hate the guerrillas more than they hate you. That one works pretty well. Ask TE Lawerence.

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. again, nothing to do with torture. and reperations are a BAD IDEA all around. Always have been. See Versailles. See Reconstruction.

Okay, now that all of your question are answered do you see the argument? Not being cool with this requires trusting the government to be benevolent and good. As PJ O'Rourke (your guy) but it, "The government has a legal monopoly on force. That scares conservatives, and comforts liberals."

So the "conservative" thing to do would be to be pissed off, right?

TFS