http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/the_security_th.html

Discuss.

To Bush supporters: imagine Micheal Moore is president (what a horrible thought) while you're reading this.

This evidence of Bush's contorting legal reasoning to grand himself indefinite dictatorial powers is precisely the thing foes of Bush feared he was capable of doing.  I don't see how any republic-loving American who values liberty can argue in defense of Bush's position on this, except fully wishful thinking and self-inducted blindness coupled with cognitive dissonance.

[quote]
There's a similar reasoning in the Braybee memo, which was written in 2002 about torture:

In a series of opinions examining various legal questions arising after September 11, we have examined the scope of the President's Commander-in-Chief power. . . . Foremost among the objectives committed by the Constitution to [the President's] trust. As Hamilton explained in arguing for the Constitution's adoption, ‘because the circumstances which may affect the public safety’ are ‘not reducible within certain limits, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority, which is to provide for the defense and safety of the community, in any manner essential to its efficacy.’ . . . [The Constitution’s] sweeping grant vests in the President an unenumerated Executive power . . . The Commander in Chief power and the President’s obligation to protect the Nation imply the ancillary powers necessary to their successful exercise.
[/quote]

This is interesting stuff. If the US is using torture in a war on terrorism, and this is based on orders from the president, then the president could be arrested and tried for war crimes. That would be interesting.

It's interesting that in our nation which represents liberty, freedom, and justice, has taken on such a dictatorial behavior to its people; Ironically enough, the very people which elected these government powers into office.

This is a rhetorical dilemma in a sense. America has made an Oxymoron out of itself. Now we're paying the price. 3 Trillion dollars in debt, fighting a war that has no sense of direction, George Bush, the 2nd president to be caught with his pants down, and millions of Americans questioning the very foundation of morals and ethics, which the U.S. was built on.

So what I’m really trying to say is; there's a lot of reflecting on ones nation, and ones government needed to be done.
Americans are known to stand up for what’s right, and what’s just. And this unequivocally, most definitely, is not! The ball’s in democracy’s court, its their move, better hope it’s the right one.

America is a republic, not a democracy.  As much as the federal government wishes it to be a democracy, and wishes the average American to believe it is one, we are still a republic.  Too bad the average American has no clue the difference between a republic and a democracy.

We are not United States citizens, we are American citizens.  To be a United States citizen actually puts one under the federal government, and not under the sovereign states governments where one resides.  The federal government rules in the federal district of Columbia and legitimately has no jurisdiction for most powers in any sovereign state.

The last 40 years have been a power grab by the federal government and the apathetic willing states taking no action to maintain their sovereignty.  This is largely done by threatening "federal highway monies" or other federal moneies if a state does not agree to do certain and particular federal requests.  It's another way of putting people into slavery.

By the way, if you don't understand the principles of liberty, you should begin studying the principles of slavery.  Many great people have said this in many different ways, and it's no different today.  We are indeed living in a non-liberty situation, at least 35% into slavery, and most Americans have no clue or are unwilling to know they are being made slaves despite putting evidence in front of them and explaining it.  This is called cognitive dissonance.

No republicans want to comment?

@Grok: Considering that it's taught in schools that we aren't an exact democracy, I think it might be safe to say that more Americans understand that than you may think.


I'm all for the increasing power of the Executive. But that's just me.

[quote author=Ishbar link=topic=13607.msg138813#msg138813 date=1135219569]
... George Bush, the 2nd president to be caught with his pants down...
[/quote]Who was the other?
Clinton?  Nixon?  A. Johnson?
NOTE: Johnson & Clinton are the only 2 to ever havae been impeached

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13607.msg139006#msg139006 date=1135353413]
[quote author=Ishbar link=topic=13607.msg138813#msg138813 date=1135219569]
... George Bush, the 2nd president to be caught with his pants down...
[/quote]Who was the other?
Clinton?  Nixon?  A. Johnson?
NOTE: Johnson & Clinton are the only 2 to ever havae been impeached
[/quote]

Both were acquitted.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=13607.msg139035#msg139035 date=1135363917]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13607.msg139006#msg139006 date=1135353413]
[quote author=Ishbar link=topic=13607.msg138813#msg138813 date=1135219569]
... George Bush, the 2nd president to be caught with his pants down...
[/quote]Who was the other?
Clinton?  Nixon?  A. Johnson?
NOTE: Johnson & Clinton are the only 2 to ever havae been impeached
[/quote]

Both were acquitted.
[/quote]I thought Johnson was removed.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13607.msg139005#msg139005 date=1135352773]
@Grok: Considering that it's taught in schools that we aren't an exact democracy, I think it might be safe to say that more Americans understand that than you may think.


I'm all for the increasing power of the Executive. But that's just me.
[/quote]

Why don't you think that's dangerous?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13607.msg139037#msg139037 date=1135364414]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13607.msg139005#msg139005 date=1135352773]
@Grok: Considering that it's taught in schools that we aren't an exact democracy, I think it might be safe to say that more Americans understand that than you may think.


I'm all for the increasing power of the Executive. But that's just me.
[/quote]

Why don't you think that's dangerous?
[/quote]

I don't think the man that is in charge of our armed forces, and basically country, should have so much power limited by other branches. I applaud Bush for taking the initiative and awarding more powers to the Executive - I think it's great. I don't have evidence or anything like that to support this as it's just my opinion of how things should be.

no limots=monarchy

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13607.msg139053#msg139053 date=1135370898]
no limots=monarchy
[/quote]

I didn't say no limits.

I hardly think his power is unchecked. The courts will challenge his power and theres not much he can do if they overrule him. Aside from trying to remove said judge or what not but if that starts to happen he runs the major risk of starting a civil war.

On the whole spying issue, I think it depends largely on what they are doing with the information they intercept. When they see something suspecious if they are using it as a reason to increase security around a building/whatever then its ok. If they decide to keep a closer watch on said person and seek warrants so that they can press charges if they get something terrorist related then its ok. However, if they just go out there and arrest the person without proper warrants and such then its not ok. From what I've heard/seen so far this is not the case as of yet so thats good.

[quote author=Zorm link=topic=13607.msg139062#msg139062 date=1135373504]
I hardly think his power is unchecked. The courts will challenge his power and theres not much he can do if they overrule him. Aside from trying to remove said judge or what not but if that starts to happen he runs the major risk of starting a civil war.
[/quote]

He can't remove a judge, they're appointed for life.

[quote author=Zorm link=topic=13607.msg139062#msg139062 date=1135373504]
I hardly think his power is unchecked. The courts will challenge his power and theres not much he can do if they overrule him. Aside from trying to remove said judge or what not but if that starts to happen he runs the major risk of starting a civil war.

On the whole spying issue, I think it depends largely on what they are doing with the information they intercept. When they see something suspecious if they are using it as a reason to increase security around a building/whatever then its ok. If they decide to keep a closer watch on said person and seek warrants so that they can press charges if they get something terrorist related then its ok. However, if they just go out there and arrest the person without proper warrants and such then its not ok. From what I've heard/seen so far this is not the case as of yet so thats good.
[/quote]
I agree 100%; it's hardly unchecked, and the fact that there are a jillion news stories going around about it further demonstrates that political opponents are unwilling to leave presidential power around unchecked.

About spying: what the fuck is wrong with you people?  I swear to god, what do you people think they're doing with it?

Bush: Heh, heh, hey Bill, listen to this one.
Clinton: (listens) Damn, that was some racy phone sex Dubya.
Bush: I'm sure glad nobody's checking on presidential power!

Seriously?  Are you planning on calling someone overseas and talking about blowing up some federal building somewhere?  Then I'm glad they're listening to you.  If you're not, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13607.msg139078#msg139078 date=1135378443]If you're not, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?[/quote]

None, assuming that's all they're using it for.  If, on the other hand, they're using that as the starting point for more general surveillance...

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13607.msg139047#msg139047 date=1135369360]
I don't think the man that is in charge of our armed forces, and basically country, should have so much power limited by other branches. I applaud Bush for taking the initiative and awarding more powers to the Executive - I think it's great. I don't have evidence or anything like that to support this as it's just my opinion of how things should be.
[/quote]

The reason that is bad is that your executive could be Hitler. You have to assume that he is Hitler when you consider whether to give him more power or not.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13607.msg139090#msg139090 date=1135391882]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13607.msg139047#msg139047 date=1135369360]
I don't think the man that is in charge of our armed forces, and basically country, should have so much power limited by other branches. I applaud Bush for taking the initiative and awarding more powers to the Executive - I think it's great. I don't have evidence or anything like that to support this as it's just my opinion of how things should be.
[/quote]

The reason that is bad is that your executive could be Hitler. You have to assume that he is Hitler when you consider whether to give him more power or not.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure our country would take away Hitler's power.  I'd also like to believe that they wouldn't elect him in the first place.

Note that Hitler wasn't quiet and seditious about his views.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13607.msg139118#msg139118 date=1135412914]
I'm pretty sure our country would take away Hitler's power.
[/quote]

Which is why it is important that power is balanced.

How many of you read the article? Bruce Schneier presents a detailed and convincing argument, in my opinion. If you think he's wrong, can you address the substance of his argument?