Bush quietly seeks to make war powers permanent, by declaring indefinite state o

[ms]

     


Bush quietly seeks to make war powers permanent, by declaring indefinite state of war


 
StumbleUponJohn Byrne
Raw Story
Sunday, Aug 31, 2008

As the nation focuses on Sen. John McCain’s choice of running mate, President Bush has quietly moved to expand the reach of presidential power by ensuring that America remains in a state of permanent war.

Buried in a recent proposal by the Administration is a sentence that has received scant attention — and was buried itself in the very newspaper that exposed it Saturday. It is an affirmation that the United States remains at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban and “associated organizations.”

Part of a proposal for Guantanamo Bay legal detainees, the provision before Congress seeks to “acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”

The New York Times’ page 8 placement of the article in its Saturday edition seems to downplay its importance. Such a re-affirmation of war carries broad legal implications that could imperil Americans’ civil liberties and the rights of foreign nationals for decades to come.

(Article continues below)


It was under the guise of war that President Bush claimed a legal mandate for his warrantless wiretapping program, giving the National Security Agency power to intercept calls Americans made abroad. More of this program has emerged in recent years, and it includes the surveillance of Americans’ information and exchanges online.

“War powers” have also given President Bush cover to hold Americans without habeas corpus — detainment without explanation or charge. Jose Padilla, a Chicago resident arrested in 2002, was held without trial for five years before being convicted of conspiring to kill individuals abroad and provide support for terrorism.

But his arrest was made with proclamations that Padilla had plans to build a “dirty bomb.” He was never convicted of this charge. Padilla’s legal team also claimed that during his time in military custody — the four years he was held without charge — he was tortured with sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, forced stress positions and injected with drugs.

Times reporter Eric Lichtblau notes that the measure is the latest step that the Administration has taken to “make permanent” key aspects of its “long war” against terrorism. Congress recently passed a much-maligned bill giving telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for their participation in what constitutional experts see as an illegal or borderline-illegal surveillance program, and is considering efforts to give the FBI more power in their investigative techniques.

“It is uncertain whether Congress will take the administration up on its request,” Lichtblau writes. “Some Republicans have already embraced the idea, with Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, introducing a measure almost identical to the administration’s proposal. ‘Since 9/11,’ Mr. Smith said, ‘we have been at war with an unconventional enemy whose primary goal is to kill innocent Americans.’”

If enough Republicans come aboard, Democrats may struggle to defeat the provision. Despite holding majorities in the House and Senate, they have failed to beat back some of President Bush’s purported “security” measures, such as the telecom immunity bill.

Bush’s open-ended permanent war language worries his critics. They say it could provide indefinite, if hazy, legal justification for any number of activities — including detention of terrorists suspects at bases like Guantanamo Bay (where for years the Administration would not even release the names of those being held), and the NSA’s warantless wiretapping program.

Lichtblau co-wrote the Times article revealing the Administration’s eavesdropping program along with fellow reporter James Risen.

He notes that Bush’s language “recalls a resolution, known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001… [which] authorized the president to ‘use all necessary and appropriate force’ against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks to prevent future strikes. That authorization, still in effect, was initially viewed by many members of Congress who voted for it as the go-ahead for the administration to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, which had given sanctuary to Mr. bin Laden.”

“But the military authorization became the secret legal basis for some of the administration’s most controversial legal tactics, including the wiretapping program, and that still gnaws at some members of Congress,” he adds.

[ironglow]

  Sure is a shame that the Prez would state in that one "offensive" sentence, that we remain at war with people who attacked us and declared war on us..How could he be so cruel ? 

[Dee]

ironglow I appreciate your patriotism, and I believe you do mine, but the fact of the matter is, you cannot ignore the fact, that Bush pushed thru an act called the Patriot Act, which gutted the Constitution, and Bill of Rights, and has tried also to "make it permanent".
You may trust Bush with such power, but you surly must in all due consciousness, realize that Bush will not always be president, and the next president or the next, may use these same outlandish laws to come after you and your children.
At our age, we know that it was already against the law to kill Americans, and these types of laws are not necessary. I for one, do not trust ANY MAN to be in total control of an entire country going to war. This decision SHOULD BE MADE by a CONGLOMERATE OF MEN, not just one.
You may not LIKE THE IDEA, that the government is slowly taking our rights away, and giving themselves more power, but, to ignore it is perilous to your family, especially those younger than you and I.
We did not need such a law, or any of it's spin offs, after Pearl Harbor, nor do we need it now.

[ms]

IRONGLOW GET SOME TINFOIL

[powderman]

It's really sad, but the world, and America, will be in a constant state of war as long as the cancer islam is allowed to pollute the minds of decent people. Shame on president Bush for trying to stop it and protect America. I do fear the patriot act in the wrong hands, meaning any dumcrap in the world. The patriot act has opened a can of worms but has also helped stop a lot of damage before it could occur. I really don't care about the rights of the  Godless ones, they have the right to remain silent, they have the right to kill only themselves, but they don't. The Godless ones live only to kill innocents. As long as the world stands by and does nothing, like the dumcraps propose, this cancer will destroy the world, and satan gets his way. POWDERMAN. 

[nomosendero]

I suppose that we should not be concerned about these groups being at war with us, but very concerned about us being at war with them.

Actually, I don't like it either way, but that is irrelevant.

[Doublebass73]

Well said Dee. I am not a fan of the Patriot Act. If the founding fathers were alive today I don't think they'd be  impressed with it either.

[ironglow]

Dee;
     Read the article again..it doesn't claim anything new..the whole stupid article is about the Prez saying we still face a bad enemy..
  What a revelation !!!
  The reason I gave that short answer is because as one reads through the article, there is little or nothing new..just some old
  complaints by a NEW YORK TIMES "reporter".
     I saw no clear statement that the prez was introducing anything to a hostile congress this late in his term. The only thing I saw,
  and that was rehashed over and over was the so called "wire tap" complaint, a misnomer in itself ! Frankly, I believe we are in a long,
   ugly struggle with radical, murderous Islam. I am not using the world wide internet to plot destruction of the US, so I am not troubled
   by it ! They are restricted to using the permits for combatting international terrorism..they are not interested if someone got away 
   without buying a dog license for little "Mopsy". Honestly, I would like them to use the same method, also limited to..drug smugglers
   and illegal alien transporters.
      The simple truth is, I pay little attention to what the NEW YORK TIMES has to say anymore.they have too often of late, been
    caught in humonguous lies.
      If one should truly be concerned about freedom, turning toward the Democrats now, would be the biggest blunder of their lives !
  The Dems have plans already to curtail much of our rights ..beyond our gun rights, a couple examples :

  1) The "Fairness Doctrine" :
       It is their plan to curtail freedom of speech by insisting that such entities as radio talk shows which
  present cheifly conservative views..MUST present as much time for liberal views..1 hour= 1 hour, 1/2 hour=1/2 hour etc.
  The libs have tried radio talk shows and found that nobody wants to hear them..so they want conservative listeners and advertisers
  to pay to hear their drivel.  Their Fairness doctrine makes no mention of the big 3 networks or PBS..

  2) "Hate speech" laws:
        If the Democrats regain all three branches..we will get "Hate Speech" legislation. Hate speech legislation is nothing BUT a
  curtailment of our first amendment freedom of speech rights. Under "Hate Speech" law, I could be jailed for the above statement
  about "radical, murderous Islam". Your preacher could be jailed for saying that homosexuality is a sin. Naturally, such a law, as we
    already see in our "hate crimes" misguided laws, would only be enforced where the sensitivities of liberals were hurt. 
        You have already seen how the "hate crimes" laws we already must answer to, have only been enforced in cases wher "hate"
  was shown to homosexuals, minorities or other liberal-favored groups. We very often see cases where someone is attacked by a
  group of some lib-favored minority group and wonder...how is it we don't see "hate crimes" penalty imposed ? We see cases where
    ethnic slurs are bandied about..but the only ones punished are the ones used against a "preferred" group..
       
   The whole idea is stupid anyway..punish someone for the crime they  actually committed, not for what we may THINK someone was
   THINKING !
   
     In the Netherlands a cartoonist faces jail time for making disparaging cartoons about Islam. He did the same about Christians & Jews
  (being a basic unbeliever)..but they are after him for the Islamic cartoons..they don't mind the others..
         
   In Canada, with their "fair speech" laws, some preachers are facing jail time for preaching against various sins and perversions.

   You may think "it can't happen here"..but it can..and it will, if the Dems take control of all three branches. The Dems have already
    indicated that they think the "European model" is superior to our own..and the Dem appointed judges will back them up.
       It wasn't long ago when a couple SCOTUS judges made a completely unfit ruling for we Americans. When asked why they made
  such a bonehead decision, one of them (I believe Ginzberg) said we should pattern our laws from the European model....I guess
  that "justice' never heard of our Constitution..or else, doesn't like what it says..

   If we want some real rights-restoring action in Washington, right now our best chance would have to be with a maverick and a proven
  reformer..not with a roots-unknown Chicago party hack and an old lap-dog NY/NJ politician..

[ms]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8049928552570056488 HERE GO IRONGLOW

[wareagleguy]

Ben Franklin said it all...

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

[nomosendero]

Thanks for the remindewr, I did not know he used the word "essential".

[ironglow]

  Again;   All that article said is that the prez reminded folks that we are at war with Al Queda, Taliban and associated organizations..

  I suppose tyhe libs were looking for surrender long ago..if they can get this other Hussein comfortably seated in the oval office..
   maybe then we can " cut & run".

[Dee]

Ben Franklin said it all...

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

I believe if you look, you will find his replication of Franklin's quote is quite accurate.

[nomosendero]

Ben Franklin said it all...

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

I believe if you look, you will find his replication of Franklin's quote is quite accurate.

To me Liberty itself is essential. Yea, I will take another look

[hunterspistol]

      So, do the Twin Towers have to fall in front of your eyes before you have a reason?  Guys, we didn't start this but, I'm proud we're finishing it. I don't see the Patriot Act effecting me at all, even though I know everything is monitored.  Constitutional rights are grand but, would you want to try to sue the government over them under martial law? Think about it, they never declared war in Korea and VietNam, called them police actions. We all know how that turned out for soldiers and veterans. Let Bush declare war, let him tell the UN that we don't need their permission to defend ourselves. Aren't those some of the same things we have rights for?