Congress Grants Unconditional Power to Bush

Originally posted by PVS
the whole point is that bush is free to decide what is not torture. he can secretly decide that beating a mans wife and kid is not torture, and nobody will ever know. he was given absolute power and all you can argue is basically "just trust him", as every american founding father spins in their grave at 4500 r.p.m.

I'm still not seeing where you get that the bill grants "absolute power". The only thing in the story you posted I could find is this:

The bill would create military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects. It also would prohibit blatant abuses of detainees but grant the president flexibility to decide what interrogation techniques are legally permissible.

The White House and its supporters have called the measure crucial in the anti-terror fight, However, some Democrats said it left the door open to abuse, violating the U.S. Constitution in the name of protecting Americans.

That tells me that there are limits. We haven't removed any constitutional checks and balances (at least not with this bill). Congress could still go back and revise it, the Supreme Court could still say that it's wrong. A president does have broad powers in a time of war, but there's nothing there to give him "unconditional power"

Originally posted by docb77
That tells me that there are limits. We haven't removed any constitutional checks and balances (at least not with this bill). Congress could still go back and revise it, the Supreme Court could still say that it's wrong. A president does have broad powers in a time of war, but there's nothing there to give him "unconditional power"

all you suggest is that eventually congress or the supreme court could eventually revoke this, and you are correct. however that does not erase the fact that until such an action is taken, he does have unconditional power to overlook the magna carta and indefinately imprison whoever he wishes and torture them in whatever way he wishes. forgive me if i lack any trust in the body of government which have forsaken their own responsibility and wrote him a blank check like this and pretty much declaired "do whatever you want, we dont care. dont make us do our jobs".

http://www.britannia.com/history/magna2.html

No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land -1215

Originally posted by PVS
all you suggest is that eventually congress or the supreme court could eventually revoke this, and you are correct. however that does not erase the fact that until such an action is taken, he does have unconditional power to overlook the magna carta and indefinately imprison whoever he wishes and torture them in whatever way he wishes. forgive me if i lack any trust in the body of government which have forsaken their own responsibility and wrote him a blank check like this and pretty much declaired "do whatever you want, we dont care. dont make us do our jobs".

http://www.britannia.com/history/magna2.html

OK once again from the article:

The bill would create military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects. It also would prohibit blatant abuses of detainees but grant the president flexibility to decide what interrogation techniques are legally permissible.

The White House and its supporters have called the measure crucial in the anti-terror fight, However, some Democrats said it left the door open to abuse, violating the U.S. Constitution in the name of protecting Americans.

Notice the word prohibit. In my mind that means the pres can't do "whatever he want's".

Now, as to the Magna Carta, two things:

1- Look at the punishments that were dished out under the very same Magna Carta - the stocks, whippings, lashings, etc. If those aren't considered "torture" then we can't really consider what the CIA has done torture.

2- We have a more recent document that talks about that kind of stuff, remember the constitution?

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. Article I section 9

there are times when imprisonment is required. Even time when it is better to imprison some people wrongly. We are at war, remember?

To use your own quote

The bill would create military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects. It also would prohibit blatant abuses of detainees but grant the president flexibility to decide what interrogation techniques are legally permissible.

The White House and its supporters have called the measure crucial in the anti-terror fight, However, some Democrats said it left the door open to abuse, violating the U.S. Constitution in the name of protecting Americans.

So they aren't allowed to use torture but the president decides what torture is... So basically they are allowed to do pretty much everything they want.

there are times when imprisonment is required. Even time when it is better to imprison some people wrongly. We are at war, remember?

It's never right to take away somebody's freedom.. when they don't deserve it...

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

its a circular argument, with the denial that congress has appointed no body to keep the administration in check in these matters. the entire 'due process' is conducted by our military, and thus can and will be in complete secrecy...for reasons of national security...of course.

and, yes that constitutional clause is dodgy, but valid. really though, what can be considered a public rebellion? some could label protestors as rebels. its all open for interpretation, unfortunately. but then again not everything in the constitution is a beacon of freedom, considering jim crow laws and prohibition laws which once existed within it. but thats all pointless to debate isnt it? the point is, it is being done now as a means of stripping the freedom of anyone who is at war with the u.s. this is not common practice and goes against all safegaurds adainst the brutality and abuse of power which is likely to take place.

Originally posted by Fishy
To use your own quote

So they aren't allowed to use torture but the president decides what torture is... So basically they are allowed to do pretty much everything they want.

So "blatant abuses" can't be avoided? I could be wrong, but I'd bet there's some sort of list in there that says, "these are absolute no-no's". The stance that makes the most sense given the whole statement is that there are certain things that are prohibited, but the pres. has flexibility for any lesser techniques. NOT unconditional power.

Originally posted by Fishy
It's never right to take away somebody's freedom.. when they don't deserve it...

Did I say right? I believe the word I used was better, required. I'm not arguing that we throw just anyone in prison for no reason, I'm saying that in some situations there's no safe way to avoid mistakes. There are some situations where "due process" has to take a back seat to "public safety".

Originally posted by Fishy

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Yeah, see that's the thing we aren't giving up "essential liberty". Nor is it "temporary safety" that we are trying to achieve.

What we are trying to achieve is long term safety. We making temporary (as in wartime only) concessions of rights in order to safeguard our liberty(essential liberty if you will) as a whole.

Originally posted by PVS

the point is, it is being done now as a means of stripping the freedom of anyone who is at war with the u.s.

Anyone at war with the U.S. doesn't deserve "freedoms".

By the very definition of declaring war on us, they want to change us, or kill us until will we change.

Be gone with your rubbish.

Originally posted by PVS
its a circular argument, with the denial that congress has appointed no body to keep the administration in check in these matters. the entire 'due process' is conducted by our military, and thus can and will be in complete secrecy...for reasons of national security...of course.

and, yes that constitutional clause is dodgy, but valid. really though, what can be considered a public rebellion? some could label protestors as rebels. its all open for interpretation, unfortunately. but then again not everything in the constitution is a beacon of freedom, considering jim crow laws and prohibition laws which once existed within it. but thats all pointless to debate isnt it? the point is, it is being done now as a means of stripping the freedom of anyone who is at war with the u.s. this is not common practice and goes against all safegaurds adainst the brutality and abuse of power which is likely to take place.

You're right that the Constitution isn't infallible, that's why the founding fathers wrote in the ability to ammend it. by the same token the Magna Carta isn't infallible either.

In this case however, I think the constitution works. It defines fairly clearly when habeus corpus can be suspended. When combined with the first ammendment, it can be assumed that protesters can't really be considered rebels. Besides, my reading of the line doesn't say habeus corpus doesn't apply to rebels, but rather habeus corpus may be suspended in times of rebellion. And that sounds more like the civil war than like vietnam protestors.

It was the second clause I was actually pointing to however. Habeus corpus may be suspended in the interest of public safety.

There may be a few innocent people among the detainees. But are we willing to risk releasing people who could be the next muhammed atta on the off chance that they aren't really what we think they are?

Once the war is over there won't be an excuse for suspension of habeus corpus. That's why the war needs to be won as fast as possible. Until then we have to do what's in the best interest of the country.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Anyone at war with the U.S. doesn't deserve "freedoms".

By the very definition of declaring war on us, they want to change us, or kill us until will we change.

Be gone with your rubbish.

so the u.s. has the divine and exclusive privilege to suspend all international treaties pertaining to warfare because....well just because. although history laughs in the face of this lie that is your point...great point anyway dude. 👆

Originally posted by PVS
so the u.s. has the divine and exclusive privilege to suspend all international treaties pertaining to warfare because....well just because. although history laughs in the face of this lie that is your point...great point anyway dude. 👆

Whether or not the detainees should really even fall under the geneva conventions is really another argument.

That being said, Bush had said that what he wanted was clarification. An Interpretation of the treaty if you will.

The phrase that everyone points to says something like - no cruel or humiliating treatment. obviously that's a subjective statement. What one person considers cruel or humiliating may be perfectly humane for someone else. What bush said he needed was something that would clarify what interrogators were allowed to do. I suppose he got a little more than he asked for... or maybe a lot less.

Originally posted by docb77
Whether or not the detainees should really even fall under the geneva conventions is really another argument.

That being said, Bush had said that what he wanted was clarification. An Interpretation of the treaty if you will.

The phrase that everyone points to says something like - no cruel or humiliating treatment. obviously that's a subjective statement. What one person considers cruel or humiliating may be perfectly humane for someone else. What bush said he needed was something that would clarify what interrogators were allowed to do. I suppose he got a little more than he asked for... or maybe a lot less.

i understand the debate, its just that this mental giant was trying to say that any one case of a nation at war with the u.s. justifies the stripping of such rights.

Originally posted by PVS
so the u.s. has the divine and exclusive privilege to suspend all international treaties pertaining to warfare because....well just because. although history laughs in the face of this lie that is your point...great point anyway dude. 👆

thats what happens when their is only one superpower in the world...its not right...but who's going to put a stop to it?

the US can damage any country, economically and militarily more than a huge combination of countries can do to it...

the only challenging force in the forseeable future is China and they can hardly preach to anyone about abuses of international human rights

it's a shit situation...

what makes it truly dangerous is that people are so brainwashed as to willingly rewrite their own history and alter their own sense of morality just for the sake of fanatical support...to feel that their nation is infallable and devinely gifted with the power to excercise such fictional revisions of the human condition, and to feel smart/accepted by their peers and ultimately superior based on the state in which they were born. you know what im alluding to historically but i wont say it.

i fear the will of such people even more than the will of the administration, given the complete lack of any threshold of tolerance.

us Brits would never do that...oh no no...never...shocking...

Originally posted by PVS
what makes it truly dangerous is that people are so brainwashed as to willingly rewrite their own history and alter their own sense of morality just for the sake of fanatical support...to feel that their nation is infallable and devinely gifted with the power to excercise such fictional revisions of the human condition, and to feel smart/accepted by their peers and ultimately superior based on the state in which they were born. you know what im alluding to historically but i wont say it.

i fear the will of such people even more than the will of the administration, given the complete lack of any threshold of tolerance.

Don't worry about complet lack of a threshhold, everyone has one. It's just that many people have a much higher tolerance than you for certain things. Lower for some things too, I might add.

Originally posted by jaden101
us Brits would never do that...oh no no...never...shocking...

Or you already have...(empire building, india, even the american revolution...)

Originally posted by docb77
Don't worry about complet lack of a threshhold, everyone has one. It's just that many people have a much higher tolerance than you for certain things. Lower for some things too, I might add.

my threshold is the elimination of a system of checks and balances, which is what we are seeing, along with blind trust and fanatical support. that was my point

Originally posted by docb77
Or you already have...(empire building, india, even the american revolution...)

he was being facetious

Originally posted by PVS
my threshold is the elimination of a system of checks and balances, which is what we are seeing, along with blind trust and fanatical support. that was my point

Unfortunately we've been seeing that slow erosion of checks and balances pretty much since the end of the civil war. Perhaps one day another revolution will be necessary. Until then, we work with what we've got.

Originally posted by PVS
he was being facetious

Thought so, wasn't sure though.

Originally posted by PVS
i understand the debate, its just that this mental giant was trying to say that any one case of a nation at war with the u.s. justifies the stripping of such rights.

The mental giant clarifies:

The people at war with the U.S. in this case deserve no "freedoms".

This is not a typical war, fought with rules of engagement by soldiers in tanks, copters, jets, or on the ground.

It's an idealogical war, fought against America as a society, in which enemy combatants deliberately kill thousands of innocent civilians, and make it plain that they are planning to do so again.

When our soldiers are captured by our enemies, they aren't treated to anything as nice as Guantanamo. They aren't protected under the Geneva convention.

The are F*CKING BEHEADED with saw blades, slowly through the neck.

In my book, the don't deserve "consideration" or "fair treatment" that we would allow other enemy combatants in a time of war.

Even still, I said in this very thread that any "cutting, slicing, stabbing, burning, or maiming" would be completely wrong and that it is unacceptable.

Again you miss the point, and say that Bush has "Unconditional power".

He doesn't, and if he did, then all the democrats and republicans in the congress are to blame, as they VOTED that he could have it.

Most Americans have no problem with this.

You just keep squawking like the crow that you are: "Strawman! caw, caw! GOP! caw, caw! knob polishers! caw, caw!"

If you support giving those bastards the same rights as enemy soldiers that fight properly against ours, than take you fagget ass to France or some place, we don't want you here.

Originally posted by docb77
Or you already have...(empire building, india, even the american revolution...)

he was being facetious

Thought so, wasn't sure though.

me?...facetious?...surely not?...no...never