I Am Shocked, Shocked that U.S. Gov Abused Blank Check Powers

[drone]

I agree with this statement. But this statement is not the same t hing as saying the Dems are just as complicit in every inch of every abuse made in the last 8 years in the name of terrorism. They aren't. Saying they caved and gave into the Administration so they are at fault is like saying she didn't leave her husband so don't tell me she's abused. Bad analogy, but you get the point. I just resent the implication being made that both parties have been equally on board about all these bad laws to equal extent-- that is very much revisionism in favor of the Republicans, who held the majority for 6/8 years and played all kinds of sore winner b.s. tactics like nuclear option. I totally agree they've been crap in the last two years and what I hear (this is pure grapevine) is that they are letting the GOP choke itself to death to help out whoever the Dem candidate is. If that's true, it's a political game and I agree it sucks. But I also think with a real majority and/or a President who isn't going to veto anything they want to do in opposition anyhow, or exact retribution by vetoing everything if they refuse to go along with a bill he wants or a funding extension, their balls will descend a bit more.

And I never tried to pin the Dems with complicity of 8 years of Bush. Just the past 2, when they had the power and ability to stop him.

Regarding "all these laws". For someone that hates the Bush administration as much as you do, I'm not sure you really understand how they work. The Bush administration doesn't care about laws, if they get passed in their favor, "yeah!", if not, "national security concerns" or signing statements will get them by. Just hand it off to the OLC, some legal hand-waving occurs, and presto!, the administration gets what they want. They will continue to do this until Congress calls them on it. The concept of the unitary executive and all that. This was one of the main reasons the Dems got all the votes in 2006, to stand up to the abuses. In this, they have failed, but they did slow down the process.

[TevashSzat]

They will continue to do this until Congress calls them on it. The concept of the unitary executive and all that. This was one of the main reasons the Dems got all the votes in 2006, to stand up to the abuses. In this, they have failed, but they did slow down the process.

The thing is, the Democrats' majority within Congress is not that great. They could try to pass laws that will restrict the president's power and such, but the thing is that even if they get a majority to vote for the bill, the president will simply veto it and there would be no way for the democrats to override the veto. Furthermore, politics will make it even harder for even most democrats to vote for many bills of this type since it will get spun and politicized.

For the Democrats to have really done a ton to oppose the Bush administration, they would have had to have a greater majority than they do now. Since they don't and thus, many votes may be close, all we end up having is a lame duck presidency and congress

[drone]

The thing is, the Democrats' majority within Congress is not that great. They could try to pass laws that will restrict the president's power and such, but the thing is that even if they get a majority to vote for the bill, the president will simply veto it and there would be no way for the democrats to override the veto. Furthermore, politics will make it even harder for even most democrats to vote for many bills of this type since it will get spun and politicized.

For the Democrats to have really done a ton to oppose the Bush administration, they would have had to have a greater majority than they do now. Since they don't and thus, many votes may be close, all we end up having is a lame duck presidency and congress

The president can't veto articles of impeachment. If the president is breaking the law with his actions and orders to executive branch agencies, the rule of law should apply. If the president tries to introduce a law that is unconstitutional, Congress should reject it. The FISA amendment was not necessary, all Congress had to do was... nothing. The president can't veto nothing. Sometimes, nothing is the best course of action.

I still fail to see what was wrong with the original FISA requirements. A (essentially) rubber-stamp court for national security measures, but where requests to tap politicians and public figures would be frowned upon. At the time of the amendment vote, we already knew about abuses with NSLs and other shenanigans. It was glaringly obvious that the executive could not be entrusted with no-oversight powers. So, of course, we give it more.

[Koga No Goshi]

The president can't veto articles of impeachment. If the president is breaking the law with his actions and orders to executive branch agencies, the rule of law should apply. If the president tries to introduce a law that is unconstitutional, Congress should reject it. The FISA amendment was not necessary, all Congress had to do was... nothing. The president can't veto nothing. Sometimes, nothing is the best course of action.

I still fail to see what was wrong with the original FISA requirements. A (essentially) rubber-stamp court for national security measures, but where requests to tap politicians and public figures would be frowned upon. At the time of the amendment vote, we already knew about abuses with NSLs and other shenanigans. It was glaringly obvious that the executive could not be entrusted with no-oversight powers. So, of course, we give it more.

I will tell you why I, personally, believe this happened. And this is just a theory from an almost poly sci major, so take it with a grain of salt.

There is this thing, and this is almost never discussed in public discourse, about the "decorum" of high office. The average American who is proud to put his feet up and drink a six pack after work could give a crap about America's "image" or government's image. But Senators, Congressmen and the higher offices do. It's something I think we exist in some state of denial about because of our spoken rejection of the aristocratic overtures of our Eurocentric past and ancestry and our stories we tell ourselves about how we're the country of the little guys.

Awhile back, and I'm operating off memory here, so I may get some of the details wrong. There was a hydro power grid proposed through several states, and it would go right through some Native American land where low income subsidized housing existed. These were people already poor and with little recourse or opportunity to just "move" or make a new start elsewhere. Representatives from this tribe were present at Congressional hearings for the proposal and one of the more outspoken representatives, a woman if I recall, happened to make an offhand remark about how just kicking all these people off their lands and re-removing them elsewhere or giving them "market rate" compensation and telling them to move was just a new chapter in the old genocide.

And the room exploded. Aides and members of Congress were chattering excitedly that they couldn't have "genocide" in the official record, and asked her to retract the statement. She herself was surprised at the reaction. But foreign heads of state read transcripts of what goes on in our Congress. The rich and the rulers and the leaders of the rest of the world pay attention, and it affects our reputation overseas, and makes headlines in places we wouldn't guess or expect. This was explained to her and she was asked to retract her statement. She said that depended on whether or not the proposal was still going to toss all these Indian people off their land, and the plan was modified on the spot, after what looked like a stone wall where no one was going to budge. All over one word and concern for the "decorum" of the official record.

So what's my point here? Bush's administration broke the law, big telecom corporations were complicit it that lawbreaking and probably knew it, even at the time they were doing it. Bush's justice department has been staffed with hacks who arbitrarily changed the definitions of torture and legality when it comes to wiretapping and eavesdropping. Why would Congress want to help them smooth this over? The same reason that such a ridiculous explanation as the "magic bullet theory" was accepted in the Kennedy assasination, and the same reason many people assisted in the coverup for Nixon. Call it what you want.... continuity of government, stability of our democracy, averting riots and revolution, sidestepping years of costly legislation and lawsuits filed by our own citizens against our own government tying up national politics for the next 25 years. Decorum of the official record.

That's why I think Congress went along with it.

[Redleg]

So what's my point here? Bush's administration broke the law, big telecom corporations were complicit it that lawbreaking and probably knew it, even at the time they were doing it. Bush's justice department has been staffed with hacks who arbitrarily changed the definitions of torture and legality when it comes to wiretapping and eavesdropping. Why would Congress want to help them smooth this over? The same reason that such a ridiculous explanation as the "magic bullet theory" was accepted in the Kennedy assasination, and the same reason many people assisted in the coverup for Nixon. Call it what you want.... continuity of government, stability of our democracy, averting riots and revolution, sidestepping years of costly legislation and lawsuits filed by our own citizens against our own government tying up national politics for the next 25 years. Decorum of the official record.

That's why I think Congress went along with it.

You do realize that going along with it makes Congress in total, all democratics and republicans complicit in the action. In essence you argued against a point that you seemly now actually agree with.

Btw, I have much disdain for ALL of Congress over their failure to declare war etc. They have been far too willing to let the President shoulder the blame -- and consequently handing him carte blanche to do things without review or prompt oversight. If they supported the Iraq invasion then they should have found the stones to declare war and stand by their vote. If you weren't willing to do that, than have the stones to vote no -- like that lass who voted against BOTH WW1 and WW2. Voting to let the President decide where, when etc. without review? Totally milquetoast response.

Goes back to the initial errors of Congress back in 1950, when instead of declaring war against North Korea for its invasion of South Korea the President asked for and recieved approval from Congress to support the UN Resolution. And we compounded that error when congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973. Congress has slowly attempted to remove its own responsiblity away from itself and pass it on to the President for many years. Unfortunately for them they have discovered that the old adage still holds true, Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The thing is this slow erosion of responsiblity under the constitution that Congress was to have, is the fault of both parties. Its not a process that just happened over the last 8 years, but one that has been ongoing since the end of WW2. Where politicians have been controlled by the thought of getting more influence through lobbies and special interest groups, then they were in maintaining their constitutional authority.

[KukriKhan]

Term Limits.

Limit Campaign Spending.

^^my new mantra^^

-edit-
I thought War Powers Act of 1973 was fairly decent; it recognized that emergencies may arise where POTUS needs to send force somewhere very quickly - and let's him do it for 60 days (while reporting to Congress), after which, if he needs more time, it's not an emergency anymore, it's war, and he follows constitutional procedure.

[Redleg]

-edit-
I thought War Powers Act of 1973 was fairly decent; it recognized that emergencies may arise where POTUS needs to send force somewhere very quickly - and let's him do it for 60 days (while reporting to Congress), after which, if he needs more time, it's not an emergency anymore, it's war, and he follows constitutional procedure.

That was the initial intent of the law, however over the last 20 years it has morphed into the authorization for the use of force, and the failure of congress to call the President on the requirements of the act.

[Koga No Goshi]

You do realize that going along with it makes Congress in total, all democratics and republicans complicit in the action. In essence you argued against a point that you seemly now actually agree with.

Here's the difference. I don't think the Dems are really "for wiretapping." But I think when it came to the TelComm immunity, they felt the damage was done. Some have argued it was a big sellout to the telecommunications corporations who abused laws and now want to get out of the liability. This is true but I do not believe it was the reason so many voted for the bill. I think covering up excessive abuses of American civil liberties, and avoiding this chapter in the U.S. History books going down as being as bad as McCarthyism, is in the interests of everyone in government-- even the people who wished a lot of this stuff had never happened in the first place.

The immunity-- the damage was done. You were not going to punish the policymakers by suing Google and Verizon out of orbit with astronomical awards in lawsuits for invasion of privacy. You were just going to wreck the economy.

Mind you, I am speaking in practicality now. I'm not saying "this is what I wish they would have done and am glad they did it this way." I am merely theorizing why things came down the way they did.

Goes back to the initial errors of Congress back in 1950, when instead of declaring war against North Korea for its invasion of South Korea the President asked for and recieved approval from Congress to support the UN Resolution. And we compounded that error when congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973. Congress has slowly attempted to remove its own responsiblity away from itself and pass it on to the President for many years. Unfortunately for them they have discovered that the old adage still holds true, Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The thing is this slow erosion of responsiblity under the constitution that Congress was to have, is the fault of both parties. Its not a process that just happened over the last 8 years, but one that has been ongoing since the end of WW2. Where politicians have been controlled by the thought of getting more influence through lobbies and special interest groups, then they were in maintaining their constitutional authority.

You have no argument from me. Although I will qualify what you said very slightly on one item. When the President demands that "his" war powers act, or "his" force resolution, must be passed for the good of the country, and makes the case directly to the American people, he is, if public opinion swings correctly, in effect blackmailing Congress. Yes, Congress "should", in idealism, stand up to that kind of thing. The reality is in the atmosphere after 9/11 very few people did, public sentiment was overWHELMINGLY in favor of passing the resolution to use force. The public wanted to see someone, anyone, blow up for what happened, preferrably sooner rather than later. So while technically I do agree with you.... we can't excuse the shortsighted unthinking nature of the American public, because temporary representatives will always have to respond to some degree to public sentiment to keep their seat. That's the way our system works. And the President for taking advantage of the mood of chaos and anger to push things through to enable himself with all kinds of war powers.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...
You have no argument from me. Although I will qualify what you said very slightly on one item. When the President demands that "his" war powers act, or "his" force resolution, must be passed for the good of the country, and makes the case directly to the American people, he is, if public opinion swings correctly, in effect blackmailing Congress. Yes, Congress "should", in idealism, stand up to that kind of thing. The reality is in the atmosphere after 9/11 very few people did, public sentiment was overWHELMINGLY in favor of passing the resolution to use force. The public wanted to see someone, anyone, blow up for what happened, preferrably sooner rather than later. So while technically I do agree with you.... we can't excuse the shortsighted unthinking nature of the American public, because temporary representatives will always have to respond to some degree to public sentiment to keep their seat. That's the way our system works. And the President for taking advantage of the mood of chaos and anger to push things through to enable himself with all kinds of war powers.

To which they should have responded by Declaring War and charging the President with the effective prosecution thereof.

Presidencies almost always push for more power. Pushing back is what makes the system work. Had Congress done so, there would have been a different tone -- the the Congress could still have placated the national mood.

Btw, I think it's important to remember that our government, ultimately, derives its powers from the governed. On the rare occasions we collectively rear up our normally ostriched heads and take charge via a massively united public opinion, it is the duty of our government to shut up and do as they are told.

[Redleg]

Here's the difference. I don't think the Dems are really "for wiretapping." But I think when it came to the TelComm immunity, they felt the damage was done. Some have argued it was a big sellout to the telecommunications corporations who abused laws and now want to get out of the liability. This is true but I do not believe it was the reason so many voted for the bill. I think covering up excessive abuses of American civil liberties, and avoiding this chapter in the U.S. History books going down as being as bad as McCarthyism, is in the interests of everyone in government-- even the people who wished a lot of this stuff had never happened in the first place.

The immunity-- the damage was done. You were not going to punish the policymakers by suing Google and Verizon out of orbit with astronomical awards in lawsuits for invasion of privacy. You were just going to wreck the economy.

Mind you, I am speaking in practicality now. I'm not saying "this is what I wish they would have done and am glad they did it this way." I am merely theorizing why things came down the way they did.

I dont necessarily disagree with what you say here, but the end result is that the Democratic Party made themselves complicit in the erosion of a basic right. The path to hell can be paved with good intentions, but it was still the wrong thing to do.

You have no argument from me. Although I will qualify what you said very slightly on one item. When the President demands that "his" war powers act, or "his" force resolution, must be passed for the good of the country, and makes the case directly to the American people, he is, if public opinion swings correctly, in effect blackmailing Congress. Yes, Congress "should", in idealism, stand up to that kind of thing. The reality is in the atmosphere after 9/11 very few people did, public sentiment was overWHELMINGLY in favor of passing the resolution to use force. The public wanted to see someone, anyone, blow up for what happened, preferrably sooner rather than later. So while technically I do agree with you.... we can't excuse the shortsighted unthinking nature of the American public, because temporary representatives will always have to respond to some degree to public sentiment to keep their seat. That's the way our system works. And the President for taking advantage of the mood of chaos and anger to push things through to enable himself with all kinds of war powers.

Yes that explains Afganstan, but they can not use that excuse to support the invasion of Iraq, and then not follow the requirments of the Act themselves. Congress has the ability to review and challenge the use of force after they give the initial approval. Something that my congresswoman refused to do, even though I wrote her concerning the requirements of the Act itself

[Koga No Goshi]

And I never tried to pin the Dems with complicity of 8 years of Bush. Just the past 2, when they had the power and ability to stop him.

Understood, it was not clear to me in the beginning that you were speaking specifically about one law. To me issues like the Telcom, Patriot Act, FISA etc. are all basically one issue.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In practice, the primary goal of any 1st term administration is....a second term.

It will be interesting to see how much of the powers acreted under the Bush adminstration will be pared back by Obama.

Btw, I have much disdain for ALL of Congress over their failure to declare war etc. They have been far too willing to let the President shoulder the blame -- and consequently handing him carte blanche to do things without review or prompt oversight. If they supported the Iraq invasion then they should have found the stones to declare war and stand by their vote. If you weren't willing to do that, than have the stones to vote no -- like that lass who voted against BOTH WW1 and WW2. Voting to let the President decide where, when etc. without review? Totally milquetoast response.

I'm not as adamantly opposed to the Patriot act or modified FISA provisions as many here (though neither is a perfect piece of law-making) -- but I'm glad they have sunset provisions and must be renewed as opposed to having become fixed. What may be necessary in extremis is intolerable under more normal circumstances and, unfortunately, The Order of Cincinattus is no longer in vogue for our leaders.