Commander-in-Chief
Prelude to dictatorship?
Bush has been touting his role as commander-in-chief a lot lately. All of his arguments regarding his powers seem to stem from that title. I have a bad feeling about it. It seems like he is building up to something. And that something may come in the form of a dictatorship whether we realize it or not.
Think about it. First Bush and his handlers argued that his role as CIC gave him the authority to lock up anyone (to include US citizens) indefinitely without trial so long as the President designated them as “enemy combatants”. Jose Padilla, the infamous “dirty bomber”, spent three years in a military brig while Bush fought with the courts over how much authority he had as CIC. The administration won a small victory with the lower appellate courts but when time came for the Supreme Court to way in on the issue, the Bushies backed out and indicted Padilla on lesser charges. Padilla finally got his day in court but the issue of presidential powers was never resolved completely.
Then there was the torture issue. When Bush proclaimed “We do not torture”, evidence to the contrary, from Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, made the words ring hollow. And then when Sen. McCain introduced a bill banning cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, Vice President Cheney sought to exempt the CIA. Bush even threatened to veto the entire bill. Finally Bush seemed to reluctantly acquiesce. Fortunately for Bush, somebody reminded him that he could attach a signing statement to the bill that would in essence allow him to renege on his promise to enforce the ban. And again his argument was that he had the authority as commander-in-chief to do so.
He has also used that argument in defense of the NSA domestic spying scandal, which violated the FISA Act of 1978. Bush says he has a right (again as CIC) not to have to get approval from the secret court set up by FISA to handle domestic spying.
All this leads me to the conclusion that Bush (or at least his handlers) seems to think of his role as command-in-chief as an all-purpose shield against any action he may take. Vice President Cheney seems almost nostalgic for the pre-Nixon days of unfettered presidential powers. With all the trouble they have been giving him lately, Bush may argue that Congress and the courts are infringing on this authority as CIC and must therefore be disbanded. Martial law will be declared and Bush will be named President for Life.
Bush has argued for a long time that his number one job is to protect Americans. He says that everything they do in the “war on terror” is done to protect the American people, from the warrantless wiretaps to the invasion of Iraq. National Security has been the answer to everything for the Bush administration. I disagree. Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Citizens come and go but the nation remains. I just wonder what kind of nation will remain after Bush is done with it.
(Originally posted on Yahoo360)
Bush has been touting his role as commander-in-chief a lot lately. All of his arguments regarding his powers seem to stem from that title. I have a bad feeling about it. It seems like he is building up to something. And that something may come in the form of a dictatorship whether we realize it or not.
Think about it. First Bush and his handlers argued that his role as CIC gave him the authority to lock up anyone (to include US citizens) indefinitely without trial so long as the President designated them as “enemy combatants”. Jose Padilla, the infamous “dirty bomber”, spent three years in a military brig while Bush fought with the courts over how much authority he had as CIC. The administration won a small victory with the lower appellate courts but when time came for the Supreme Court to way in on the issue, the Bushies backed out and indicted Padilla on lesser charges. Padilla finally got his day in court but the issue of presidential powers was never resolved completely.
Then there was the torture issue. When Bush proclaimed “We do not torture”, evidence to the contrary, from Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, made the words ring hollow. And then when Sen. McCain introduced a bill banning cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, Vice President Cheney sought to exempt the CIA. Bush even threatened to veto the entire bill. Finally Bush seemed to reluctantly acquiesce. Fortunately for Bush, somebody reminded him that he could attach a signing statement to the bill that would in essence allow him to renege on his promise to enforce the ban. And again his argument was that he had the authority as commander-in-chief to do so.
He has also used that argument in defense of the NSA domestic spying scandal, which violated the FISA Act of 1978. Bush says he has a right (again as CIC) not to have to get approval from the secret court set up by FISA to handle domestic spying.
All this leads me to the conclusion that Bush (or at least his handlers) seems to think of his role as command-in-chief as an all-purpose shield against any action he may take. Vice President Cheney seems almost nostalgic for the pre-Nixon days of unfettered presidential powers. With all the trouble they have been giving him lately, Bush may argue that Congress and the courts are infringing on this authority as CIC and must therefore be disbanded. Martial law will be declared and Bush will be named President for Life.
Bush has argued for a long time that his number one job is to protect Americans. He says that everything they do in the “war on terror” is done to protect the American people, from the warrantless wiretaps to the invasion of Iraq. National Security has been the answer to everything for the Bush administration. I disagree. Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Citizens come and go but the nation remains. I just wonder what kind of nation will remain after Bush is done with it.
(Originally posted on Yahoo360)
Post a Comment