BigSqwert

Great article from The Nation. Posted on 12/20/2005: The Hidden State Steps Forward Jonathan Schell When the New York Times revealed that George W. Bush had ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap the foreign calls of American citizens without seeking court permission, as is indisputably required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress in 1978, he faced a decision. Would he deny the practice, or would he admit it? He admitted it. But instead of expressing regret, he took full ownership of the deed, stating that his order had been entirely justified, that he had in fact renewed it thirty times, that he would continue to renew it and--going even more boldly on the offensive--that those who had made his law-breaking known had committed a "shameful act." As justification, he offered two arguments, one derisory, the other deeply alarming. The derisory one was that Congress, by authorizing him to use force after September 11, had authorized him to suspend FISA, although that law is unmentioned in the resolution. Thus has Bush informed the members of a supposedly co-equal branch of government of what, unbeknownst to themselves, they were thinking when they cast their vote. The alarming argument is that as Commander in Chief he possesses "inherent" authority to suspend laws in wartime. But if he can suspend FISA at his whim and in secret, then what law can he not suspend? What need is there, for example, to pass or not pass the Patriot Act if any or all of its provisions can be secretly exceeded by the President? Bush's choice marks a watershed in the evolution of his Administration. Previously when it was caught engaging in disgraceful, illegal or merely mistaken or incompetent behavior, he would simply deny it. "We have found the weapons of mass destruction!" "We do not torture!" However, further developments in the torture matter revealed a shift. Even as he denied the existence of torture, he and his officials began to defend his right to order it. His Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, refused at his confirmation hearings to state that the torture called waterboarding, in which someone is brought to the edge of drowning, was prohibited. Then when Senator John McCain sponsored a bill prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, Bush threatened to veto the legislation to which it was attached. It was only in the face of majority votes in both houses against such treatment that he retreated from his claim. But in the wiretapping matter, he has so far exhibited no such vacillation. Secret law-breaking has been supplanted by brazen law-breaking. The difference is critical. If abuses of power are kept secret, there is still the possibility that, when exposed, they will be stopped. But if they are exposed and still permitted to continue, then every remedy has failed, and the abuse is permanently ratified. In this case, what will be ratified is a presidency that has risen above the law. The danger is not abstract or merely symbolic. Bush's abuses of presidential power are the most extensive in American history. He has launched an aggressive war ("war of choice," in today's euphemism) on false grounds. He has presided over a system of torture and sought to legitimize it by specious definitions of the word. He has asserted a wholesale right to lock up American citizens and others indefinitely without any legal showing or the right to see a lawyer or anyone else. He has kidnapped people in foreign countries and sent them to other countries, where they were tortured. In rationalizing these and other acts, his officials have laid claim to the unlimited, uncheckable and unreviewable powers he has asserted in the wiretapping case. He has tried to drop a thick shroud of secrecy over these and other actions. There is a name for a system of government that wages aggressive war, deceives its citizens, violates their rights, abuses power and breaks the law, rejects judicial and legislative checks on itself, claims power without limit, tortures prisoners and acts in secret. It is dictatorship. The Administration of George W. Bush is not a dictatorship, but it does manifest the characteristics of one in embryonic form. Until recently, these were developing and growing in the twilight world of secrecy. Even within the executive branch itself, Bush seemed to govern outside the normally constituted channels of the Cabinet and to rely on what Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff has called a "cabal." Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill reported the same thing. Cabinet meetings were for show. Real decisions were made elsewhere, out of sight. Another White House official, John DiIulio, has commented that there was "a complete lack of a policy apparatus" in the White House. "What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm." As in many Communist states, a highly centralized party, in this case the Republican Party, was beginning to forge a parallel apparatus at the heart of government, a semi-hidden state-within-a-state, by which the real decisions were made. With Bush's defense of his wiretapping, the hidden state has stepped into the open. The deeper challenge Bush has thrown down, therefore, is whether the country wants to embrace the new form of government he is creating by executive fiat or to continue with the old constitutional form. He is now in effect saying, "Yes, I am above the law--I am the law, which is nothing more than what I and my hired lawyers say it is--and if you don't like it, I dare you to do something about it." Members of Congress have no choice but to accept the challenge. They did so once before, when Richard Nixon, who said, "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal," posed a similar threat to the Constitution. The only possible answer is to inform Bush forthwith that if he continues in his defiance, he will be impeached. If Congress accepts his usurpation of its legislative power, they will be no Congress and might as well stop meeting. Either the President must uphold the laws of the United States, which are Congress's laws, or he must leave office.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 04:43 PM) YOUR rights won't be taken away. They already have been. Whether it is me specifically, which I will never know, or another American citizen, our rights have already been violated. What part of that don't you get?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 12:24 PM) If people of Polish ( Im Polish ) descent were known to be plotting and committing acts of terrorism then I would have absolutely no problems with Law Enforcement profiling Polish people. If they ran my record they'd see Im a card-carrying Republican, NRA member, military guy and go "next". Wait, I just thought of something, every time a polak gets behind the wheel of a car he commits an act of terrorism. Seriously though, if people would stop whining about Law Enforcement and just co-operate with them then life would be a lot easier. Some people here make it sound like Law Enforcement has nothing better to do than harass people just for the sake of harassing them. Just seems anti-American to support the government s***ting all over the constitution and violating our civil rights. Thousands of good Americans died for us to have those rights and now we could care less about them.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 10:10 PM) If the shoe fits... If they listen to someone who's innocent once, and nothing comes of it, I bet that's done and over. If you have nothing to hide, it doesn't matter much. You would have loved Communist Russia. Sounds like your kind of place. They'd even check your mail for you before you had a chance to read it. But as long as you had nothing to hide no problem. Better yet, why don't you let me listen in on all of your phone conversations starting today? Just in case. You never know who's a terrorist. I want to be able to help my country whenever I can. You don't have a problem with that do you?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 03:21 PM) Im so sick of hearing about racial profiling. I look at it as common freekin sense. If the people who are committing terrorism are young Middle Eastern males then it makes sense to focus your investigations on them. Same goes for Young Black Males and random acts of criminality. Im sorry if it looks bad but thats just facts of life. I wonder how gung ho you would be if instead of Middle Eastern American males they were targeting the males of you or your family's ethinicity. Might not be as dissmissive and apologetic about wire taps and the like.

50%??? Wow that's amazing. Maybe we should put Dubya's face on Mt Rushmore now. Why wait?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 07:18 PM) So now it's Walmart's job to give everyone health insurance. Not everyone. Just their FT employees. And yes...looks like they are finally responding after...how many years?

Reason #673 to hate on Wal-Mart. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/22/walmart....h.ap/index.html Quote from the article: The company added lower-cost health insurance this year after an internal memo surfaced that showed 46 percent of Wal-Mart employees' children were on Medicaid or uninsured. Guess who pays for that Medicaid? We do as taxpayers.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:56 PM) Hey Henry, any idea if Mr West Looper himself, Ilk is going to be back for the bash? I thought he was in NY.

Hey Henry! Didn't know you posted on this board. Get tired of the nazi's across the way?

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 12:16 PM) Keep rooting for us to fail.... No need to root. This administration seems to screw up just about anything it touches, whether I root or not.

Wow. Now we are paying British newspapers to print positive stories?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:29 AM) Some rebuttals for traditional arguements... http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/...91756-3971r.htm I'm just sick of dependance on oil in general. Emissions from vehicles are destroying the air we breath and accelerating global warming. It's the entire environment I am worried about, not just Alaska's. EDIT: And before anyone points their finger at me and calls me a hyprocrite, I sold my car earlier this year and ride my bike to work or take the bus/train. Also a member of the NRDC.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:47 AM) This is one thing that bugs me. The ultimate motivation of America is self determination. People are supposed to be able to get as much of what they want, or as little of what they want to the best of their ability. Corporate America was never intended to be any different than anything else. Corporate America AND the federal government where never intended to be our babysitters. Corporations do give back to their employees, its called a paycheck. The great majority of them go way beyond that and give their employees benefits. Last I read the average price of the benefits ends up costing the company about another yearly salary of that particular employee. This was never intended to be a socialist society where you work the same government job until your retirement age, and then you live off of a fat government pension. Basically everyone has the choices that they can make to improve their lifestyle. They can move, they can go back to school, they can stay in school, they can train for a higher position, they can not have as many kids etc. They don't have to work for Wal-Mart or anywhere else, nor do they have to shop there. Be a leader....turn down all of your benefits and pay for everything out of your own pockets. Everyone will follow.

QUOTE(Konerko4mvp @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:10 AM) THAT IS WHAT SUCKS..by the time it goes to public there wont be tix available...

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 11:05 PM) I have no patience for the "well if you only understood that they live in a remote area with no opportunity". Oddly my father just after I was born, packed up the family with barely nothing in his pocket moved from Ireland to the US with pretty much no money, joined the Army, got out and worked a few jobs while he went to school at night, then made sure that all of his kids got their educations and went to college. Nothing that a lot of hard work, and some vision cannot fix. You can blame the walmarts of the world, or you can better yourself and your situation. People can get their degrees or learn a trade. If you dont want to go to college, become a carpenter, electrician, pipe fitter, or something. But dont get the job at walmart and then b**** because they are not paying you enough. I will let you slide on this one since you are a liberal. Because republicans have "moral values" right? And if you have moral values you care about people less fortunate and try to help when you can, not criticize them. Only a liberal would bash the unfortunate.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 08:53 AM) I've heard that complaint before and I don't understand it. We have government programs to help the jobless and the working poor. Working poor use those programs. Are all those employers bad? Is the complaint about those programs, the workers, or the companies? If it is a good program, why complain about the working poor using them? If it is the workers, why criticize them for using a program they qualify for? I just find it ironic that a company of this size (bigger than any oil company) is making bilions and billions of dollars and so many of their employees need government assistance. Perhaps they can take some of their record breaking profits and give back to the people who got them there. Provide some affordable health care at least.

QUOTE(ThomeOnTheRange @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 06:03 PM) Oh well, now that all my good shows on FX is over for now, I'm just gonna post. The Shield starts in a couple weeks or so. Still the best in class for F/X dramas.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 10:59 PM) But as long as the Waltons cut a check to Unicef then they will be okay in your book. No. I just provided one example out of many of why they make me ill.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 09:54 PM) Nobody is holding a gun to their heads and making them work at WalMart. If they need more money, get a different job. Unfortunately that is easier said than done in a lot of small communities where Wal-Mart wiped away a bunch of small businesses. Easy to say in the Chicagoland area but not the same in a small town in Montana.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 07:12 PM) f*** yea! Let's increase taxes so you poor f***s can have some more government handouts! Stop making fun of Wal-Mart employees.

You all can think what you want but I refuse to support a company which has 5 of the richest 10 people in the world yet contribute virtually nothing to charity. On the other hand, Bill Gates contributed over 50% of his personal income to charity in 2004 alone. The Walton family represents the ultimate in greed and it makes me sick. f*** them and their greed. I'll buy my milk elsewhere.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 07:49 PM) Once a Walmart hourly minimum wage employee, always a walmart hourly minimum wage employee. Hey, whatchoo talkin about sucka? I work at K-Mart!

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 06:16 PM) As long as I can get my gallon of milk for $1.98 at Walmart instead of shelling out 4 bucks at Jewel, they can keep that model going. Sure get your $1.98 gallon of milk. Oh by the way your also helping shell out to subsidize all the millions of dollars being spent on Wal-Mart employees who are on welfare, getting food stamps and getting all sorts of state and federal aid because their greedy company doesn't pay them enough and provide them with benefits. Maybe you are exempt from helping pay for that welfare but I'm pretty sure my taxes help pay for that.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 04:08 PM) After campaigning against Wal-Mart and other corporations, you would think that a consumate politician would think it might be a good idea to tell your trust to avoid conflicts of interest, especially with disclosures the way they are now a days. I am now shaking with anger.