Wow, have you tried immodium? Please remember the context of your issues. People can spy on me all they want, I have nothing to hide. Do You?
How about economic authoritarianism then? Keep it short. Cheers, Mark On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 12:26 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote: > > Mark said to dmb: > ... In your opinion, who is more authoritarian, Obama or Bush Jr.? Just > wondering. Who is more competitive and destructive? Obama has only had two > years to far. .. I do not agree that the right wing is more likely to > suspend the bill of rights. > > > > dmb says: > > What color is the sky in your world? Do they have newspapers on your > planet? > > Seriously, it is common knowledge that the Bush administration made a > sustained effort to expand executive authority. I'd be surprised if you > could even find a right-winger who would deny that. It was in all the > papers, you know? It was Cheney's dream since the early 1970's. You can find > this out at the Cato Institute or USA Today. Nobody failed to report on this > expansion of power and the weakening of rights that goes with it. The story > has been told a million times. Literally. For those who've been living in a > cave for the last ten years, here's how a leftist paper reported the story > almost five years ago: > > Bush administration report defends spying, unconstrained executive powersBy > Joe Kay23 January 2006The Bush administration is responding to revelations > of illegal government spying by mounting a campaign to defend its actions, > employing the same arguments that have been used to justify a massive > expansion of executive powers on a number of different fronts. Far from > retreating in the face of media reports of the secret National Security > Agency (NSA) program to spy on US citizens, the administration has declared > that it cannot be constrained in carrying out these actions.The existence of > the NSA program was first revealed last month in an article in the New York > Times. It was reported at the time that the Bush administration had > authorized the NSA to spy on some communications entering or leaving the > United States. It has since become clear that the spying agency has gained > access to vast databases of telephone calls and e-mails, most of which have > nothing to do with Al Qaeda, but include communications made by ordinary > Americans. During the past several months, there have also been numerous > revelations of spying on American citizens because of their antiwar > activity.The pseudo-legal arguments used to defend the NSA program were > outlined in a 42-page document issued by the Justice Department on January > 19. The memo claims that the spying falls within the framework of the > president’s wartime powers as commander in chief of the military, which the > Bush administration contends were activated by the Authorization for the Use > of Military Force (AUMF), passed by Congress in the wake of the attacks of > September 11, 2001.Because the country is at war, the Justice Department > memo argues, the president has the authority to “conduct warrantless > surveillance of enemy forces.” The NSA activities “are primarily an exercise > of the President’s authority as Commander in Chief during an armed conflict > that Congress expressly has authorized the President to pursue,” it argues. > “The NSA activities, moreover, have been undertaken specifically to prevent > a renewed attack at the hands of an enemy that has already inflicted the > single deadliest foreign attack in the Nation’s history.”Governments seeking > to appropriate dictatorial powers have often warned that these powers are > necessary to protect the nation against some external threat. The Bush > administration’s arguments are entirely within this mold. The Justice > Department memo states, “The AUMF places the President at the zenith of his > powers in authorizing the NSA activities.”The memo attempts to justify this > previously unknown term—“zenith of his powers”—by referencing a concurring > opinion written by US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in the 1952 Steel > Seizure Case. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that President Harry > Truman could not claim wartime powers in seizing control of steel mills that > had stopped production during a strike. In his opinion, Jackson outlined > three scenarios that might govern a presidential action: (1) A president > acts “pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress,” in which > case his powers were at their maximum; (2) There is no legislation bearing > on the matter, in which case the president is in a “zone of twilight” > regarding what he may or may not do; and (3) The president acts in a way > that is expressly forbidden by Congress, in which case his power is at its > “lowest ebb.”According to this rubric, the NSA spying program would clearly > fall within category 3, since the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act > forbids spying on communications originating from or entering the United > States without a court-approved warrant. The Bush administration, however, > argues that the AUMF authorizes the president to use all of his traditional > wartime powers, including intelligence gathering on all alleged enemies in > this war. Therefore, the Justice Department memo claims, its actions fall > under category 1 of Jackson’s framework.The idea that the AUMF authorizes a > vast expansion of domestic spying powers is absurd. The legislation states, > in part, “The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate > force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines > planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred > on September 11, 2001.” It says nothing about spying on US citizens. > However, in interpreting the act as conferring expansive new powers, the > administration has pointed to precedent in the 2004 Supreme Court decision > in the case of Yaser Hamdi.At the time, the Hamdi case was championed by the > Democrats as a major setback for the Bush administration because it granted > so-called “enemy combatants,” including Hamdi, a US citizen, certain habeas > corpus rights (which have since been sharply curtailed by a congressional > act passed late last year). As the WSWS noted at the time, however, the > controlling decision, written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, accepted the > validity of the “war on terror” and the argument that the AUMF gives the > president the power to seize anyone, including US citizens, and hold them > indefinitely as enemy combatants. (See The meaning of the US Supreme Court > rulings on ‘enemy combatants’)The administration is now arguing on the same > grounds that the AUMF gives it the authority to carry out domestic spying. A > similar argument has been advanced in administration memos to claim that the > president has the right to order military tribunals and the torture of > prisoners.In putting forward this argument, the administration is adopting > the position that the entire world, including the United States, is a > battlefield in the war on terror. Since the American government is at war, > and since the battlefield includes the United States, spying on US residents > is necessary in order to spy on the enemy.In essence, the Bush > administration has declared that the US population as a whole consists of > actual or potential combatants in the war on terrorism. The repeated > statements to the effect that the spying only involves members of Al > Qaeda—or those associated with it—are entirely bogus, since the databases > the government is accessing are not limited to communications between Al > Qaeda members.A report issued January 5 by the Congressional Research > Service examining the administration’s justifications for the NSA program > noted: “The Administration’s position would seem to rely on at least two > assumptions. First, it appears to require that the power to conduct > electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes is an essential aspect of > the use of military force in the same way that the capture of enemy > combatants on the battlefield is a necessary incident to the conduct of > military operations. Second, it appears to consider the ‘battlefield’ in the > war on terrorism to extend beyond the area of traditional military > operations to include US territory.”According to this view, the report > noted, “the United States is under actual and continuing enemy attack, and > the President has the authority to conduct electronic surveillance in the > same way the armed forces gather intelligence about the military operations > of enemy forces, even if no actual combat is taking place.”The > administration still has to deal with the inconvenient fact that FISA > explicitly prohibits the very type of actions that have been authorized for > the NSA. In particular, it mandates that any surveillance of communications > entering or leaving the United States must be approved by a FISA court. The > FISA Act was set up in 1978 after revelations that US intelligence agencies > were carrying out extensive monitoring of antiwar protestors and other > opponents of US government policies.Besides its general commitment to the > principle of unconstrained executive power, the administration wants to > bypass FISA for two reasons. First, it is filtering through large databases > that include thousands or even millions of separate communications. Second, > the ultimate aim is to spy on all political opponents, and not simply those > that can somehow be tied to Al Qaeda.In dismissing FISA, the Justice > Department argues that if FISA or other legislation is “interpreted to > impede the President’s ability to use the traditional tool of electronic > surveillance” then “the constitutionality of FISA, as applied to that > situation, would be called into very serious doubt.” Since the > constitutional powers of the president as commander in chief are essentially > unlimited, any constraints on these powers may be unconstitutional. The memo > then makes the argument that the NSA program does not in fact violate FISA, > based again on the claim that the AUMF authorizes the spying.Finally, the > Justice Department maintains that the spying program is not a violation of > the Fourth Amendment protection against “unreasonable searches and > seizures.” The searches “are reasonable because the Government’s interest, > defending the Nation from another foreign attack in time of armed conflict, > outweighs the individual privacy interests at stake, and because they seek > to intercept only international communications where one party is linked to > al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization.”Behind the pages of > obfuscation laid out by the Justice Department report is the basic argument > that the undefined “war on terrorism” confers upon the president > unprecedented powers that have no limit in space or time. Underlying this > argument is the “Big Lie,” accepted by the entire political establishment > and the media, that all the actions of the US government since 2001 have > been in response to the threat of terrorism. In fact, the attacks of > September 11 have been used as a pretext to carry out polices long sought by > the American ruling elite, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and > the unprecedented attack on democratic rights in the US.The extraordinary > attack on democratic rights represented by the NSA program and the other > actions of the Bush administration has only been possible due to the > complicity of the Democratic Party. On the Sunday morning television talk > shows, leading Democrats declared their support for the spying in general, > only voicing the hope that the administration would do it in a way that was > less overtly illegal.On ABC’s program “This Week,” former presidential > candidate and current senator John Kerry declared that while he was critical > of the way the administration had pursued the program in secret, he > considered a move by Congress to cut off funding for it to be “premature.” > He said the president should go to Congress if he wants to get authorization > to continue the program.Senator Joseph Lieberman, the former vice > presidential candidate, declared on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” “I want my > president to be reading e-mails of people talking to Al Qaeda.” He added, > “Congress needs to get together on a bipartisan basis and give the president > the authority to do what he has done.” And Congresswoman Jane Harman, the > ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, also on “This Week,” > said that “if FISA is being violated, we should either change FISA or change > the program.” She indicated her preference by declaring that we “need a > strong program.” As a member of the so-called congressional “Group of > Eight,” Harman has received briefings on the spy program since it began four > years ago.See Also:Bush administration domestic spying provokes lawsuits, > calls for impeachment[18 January 2006]More revelations of illegal spying by > US government[7 January 2006]Bush employs “Big Lie” technique to defend > illegal spying on Americans[24 December 2005] > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
