Bush Ignores Generals and Admirals, Again
October 13, 2005 7:20 PM Subscribe
Bush Ignores Generals and Admirals, Again Once again, President Bush is ignoring the good advice of the most experienced military officers, and endangering our troops in the process. A host of retired flag officers are asking the Supreme Court to stop Bush's military tribunals because it destroys our moral credibility abroad.
Moral credibility? Heh.
"In denying Hamdan the protections of the Geneva Conventions, President Bush made the United States a law unto itself. In upholding his actions, the federal appeals court placed the President above Congress and his actions beyond judicial scrutiny. This vast and dangerous expansion of presidential power threatens the men and women of our Armed Forces. The sooner the Supreme Court hears Hamdan’s case, the safer our soldiers will be."
Seriously though, say hello to the new boss he's the same as the old boss. The US has been using illegitimate force in conflicts for two centuries. In hundreds of conflicts, for example, the US has only formally used a Declaration of War a handful of times. Presidents already were a law unto themselves. Since at least Nixon, an executive order has allowed Presidents to at least temporarily commit troops overseas... so whatever.
Also dude, are you really an ex-priest and stuff? What's that like?
posted by tweak at 7:28 PM on October 13, 2005
"In denying Hamdan the protections of the Geneva Conventions, President Bush made the United States a law unto itself. In upholding his actions, the federal appeals court placed the President above Congress and his actions beyond judicial scrutiny. This vast and dangerous expansion of presidential power threatens the men and women of our Armed Forces. The sooner the Supreme Court hears Hamdan’s case, the safer our soldiers will be."
Seriously though, say hello to the new boss he's the same as the old boss. The US has been using illegitimate force in conflicts for two centuries. In hundreds of conflicts, for example, the US has only formally used a Declaration of War a handful of times. Presidents already were a law unto themselves. Since at least Nixon, an executive order has allowed Presidents to at least temporarily commit troops overseas... so whatever.
Also dude, are you really an ex-priest and stuff? What's that like?
posted by tweak at 7:28 PM on October 13, 2005
i agree with tweak. my big fear is that, once we have rid our selves of bush, that we go back to the slightly less evil forms we have had in the past. i say , lets make a clean break. agree on certain principles , and stick to it this time. :P
posted by nola at 8:10 PM on October 13, 2005
posted by nola at 8:10 PM on October 13, 2005
This Bush; we should keep our eye on him.
posted by xmutex at 8:04 PM PST on October 13 [!]
Don't let him near your valuables.
posted by Balisong at 9:51 PM on October 13, 2005
posted by xmutex at 8:04 PM PST on October 13 [!]
Don't let him near your valuables.
posted by Balisong at 9:51 PM on October 13, 2005
I'm really not seeing a plan here by Bushco. Seriously, what's the agenda? Nihilism? Is the idea we have to mold these folks into whatever shape we want 'em?
If so, why not use methods that work?
If not, why use methods that antagonize everyone?
It's not merely seeking to circumvent the old rules, it's as though they have absolutely no sense of history. Rome? Hello? Inquisitions? Ahoy? Anything? None of the old methods worked. At best they were short term localized exertions of power. It didn't work for the Soviets. Why would it be any different this time?
The conclusion of a path like this can only be to point the nukes at your own territory to maintain power.
The tribunals, the torture business and the magical 'presto' ability for the president to declare an american citizen an enemy combatant have me pretty worked up here. Now we seek to disregard (and disgrace ) our most honorable men and women.
Is the shit that good?
posted by Smedleyman at 10:32 PM on October 13, 2005
If so, why not use methods that work?
If not, why use methods that antagonize everyone?
It's not merely seeking to circumvent the old rules, it's as though they have absolutely no sense of history. Rome? Hello? Inquisitions? Ahoy? Anything? None of the old methods worked. At best they were short term localized exertions of power. It didn't work for the Soviets. Why would it be any different this time?
The conclusion of a path like this can only be to point the nukes at your own territory to maintain power.
The tribunals, the torture business and the magical 'presto' ability for the president to declare an american citizen an enemy combatant have me pretty worked up here. Now we seek to disregard (and disgrace ) our most honorable men and women.
Is the shit that good?
posted by Smedleyman at 10:32 PM on October 13, 2005
I'm really not seeing a plan here by Bushco.
I don't know if there's a plan so much as there's an attitude, a deep, to the core, acidic cynicism that informs their every move. And I don't think it's GWB, it's the folks around him, the likes of Rummy, Rove, and Cheney. I see a group of mean spirited miserable old sob's telling the boy king what to do.
posted by scheptech at 11:12 PM on October 13, 2005
I don't know if there's a plan so much as there's an attitude, a deep, to the core, acidic cynicism that informs their every move. And I don't think it's GWB, it's the folks around him, the likes of Rummy, Rove, and Cheney. I see a group of mean spirited miserable old sob's telling the boy king what to do.
posted by scheptech at 11:12 PM on October 13, 2005
It may not have worked for long in historical terms, Smedleyman, but that kind of thing can give a few lifetimes of power and privilege to a select few before it burns out. People regularly commit murder for much less.
posted by hattifattener at 11:13 PM on October 13, 2005
posted by hattifattener at 11:13 PM on October 13, 2005
In hundreds of conflicts, for example, the US has only formally used a Declaration of War a handful of times.
It has never been tested constitutionally, but it is broadly assumed that a Use of Force Resolution under the War Powers Act is the equivalent, both domestically and internationally, to a Declaration of War. I would agree that Congress should have the balls to actually declare, and WPA resolutions appear pusillanimous in historical context, but there is no legal distinction.
Presidents already were a law unto themselves. Since at least Nixon, an executive order has allowed Presidents to at least temporarily commit troops overseas... so whatever.
The President is the Commander-in-Chief and has had that power since the Constitution was ratified*. It was only with the War Powers Act that Congress was able to insist that it had a role. The question of whether the War Powers Act is law is unsettled; although Presidents have used its notice provisions since, they have not treated it as consent.
Fascinatingly, the current debate taking place in the courts over enemy combatants is adding considerably to the thin history of litigation of war powers.
* Under the Articles of Confederation, only Congress could appoint a commander-in-chief, for a limited term, and only with the consent of 9 of 13 states.
posted by dhartung at 1:52 AM on October 14, 2005
It has never been tested constitutionally, but it is broadly assumed that a Use of Force Resolution under the War Powers Act is the equivalent, both domestically and internationally, to a Declaration of War. I would agree that Congress should have the balls to actually declare, and WPA resolutions appear pusillanimous in historical context, but there is no legal distinction.
Presidents already were a law unto themselves. Since at least Nixon, an executive order has allowed Presidents to at least temporarily commit troops overseas... so whatever.
The President is the Commander-in-Chief and has had that power since the Constitution was ratified*. It was only with the War Powers Act that Congress was able to insist that it had a role. The question of whether the War Powers Act is law is unsettled; although Presidents have used its notice provisions since, they have not treated it as consent.
Fascinatingly, the current debate taking place in the courts over enemy combatants is adding considerably to the thin history of litigation of war powers.
* Under the Articles of Confederation, only Congress could appoint a commander-in-chief, for a limited term, and only with the consent of 9 of 13 states.
posted by dhartung at 1:52 AM on October 14, 2005
President Bush is the commander-in-chief so he must know what is the best thing for us to do. The military guys ought to simply do as they are told and obey orders from their commander.
posted by Postroad at 6:52 AM on October 14, 2005
posted by Postroad at 6:52 AM on October 14, 2005
The US has been using illegitimate force in conflicts for two centuries
Those bastards!
posted by srboisvert at 8:49 AM on October 14, 2005
Those bastards!
posted by srboisvert at 8:49 AM on October 14, 2005
"My real fear for America is that when it finds a few axioms on which a working majority can agree, a few dogmas to which it can rally, there will be an immediate effort to crush out all incompatible ideas, and even to atrophy its own possibilities of further development by extirpating any growth of genius within its own ranks, exactly as was done by Rome. In this event the tyranny would be infinitely worse than anything in the history of Christianity..."
from "The Confessions of Aleister Crowley", 1929
posted by dinsdale at 9:22 AM on October 14, 2005
from "The Confessions of Aleister Crowley", 1929
posted by dinsdale at 9:22 AM on October 14, 2005
President Bush is the commander-in-chief so he must know what is the best thing for us to do. The military guys ought to simply do as they are told and obey orders from their commander.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll. -Kipling
posted by bigskyguy at 1:04 PM on October 14, 2005
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll. -Kipling
posted by bigskyguy at 1:04 PM on October 14, 2005
President Bush is the commander-in-chief so he must know what is the best thing for us to do. The military guys ought to simply do as they are told and obey orders from their commander.
Heh heh, good one.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:57 PM on October 14, 2005
Heh heh, good one.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:57 PM on October 14, 2005
scheptech: ...there's an attitude, a deep, to the core, acidic cynicism that informs their every move. And I don't think it's GWB, it's the folks around him, the likes of Rummy, Rove, and Cheney. I see a group of mean spirited miserable old sob's telling the boy king what to do.
Yes...its totally cynical, all of it, and in a way that's completely divorced from realities on the ground, no matter where in the world. I wonder if its related to their hawkish-ness, or if the usual cynicism of the US intelligence community has somehow penetrated Bush to the core via poppy - ex CIA director - and/or his (=dumbya) Nixonian puppeteers.
Still, somehow, they're childishly niave and idealistic at the same time. It's a really sort of disquieting combo, all in all. Or is that more cynicism, whose energy is directed at propaganda and diversion?
I also think that Rummy - not Rove or Cheney - is the man behind all of this....it's Cheney who was Rummy's underling and protege back in the Nixon/Ford years. As much of a monster as Cheney is, Rumsfeld's cynicism and cold logic is much more chilling because he shows it while reacting on his feet, at news conferences and such. Cheney just spouts/recites it. Rumsfeld seems to just like conjure it out of the air...not to mention the influence of the DIA and how the various scandals revolving around the Pentagon just sliiiiide off.
posted by nevercalm at 10:22 AM on October 15, 2005
Yes...its totally cynical, all of it, and in a way that's completely divorced from realities on the ground, no matter where in the world. I wonder if its related to their hawkish-ness, or if the usual cynicism of the US intelligence community has somehow penetrated Bush to the core via poppy - ex CIA director - and/or his (=dumbya) Nixonian puppeteers.
Still, somehow, they're childishly niave and idealistic at the same time. It's a really sort of disquieting combo, all in all. Or is that more cynicism, whose energy is directed at propaganda and diversion?
I also think that Rummy - not Rove or Cheney - is the man behind all of this....it's Cheney who was Rummy's underling and protege back in the Nixon/Ford years. As much of a monster as Cheney is, Rumsfeld's cynicism and cold logic is much more chilling because he shows it while reacting on his feet, at news conferences and such. Cheney just spouts/recites it. Rumsfeld seems to just like conjure it out of the air...not to mention the influence of the DIA and how the various scandals revolving around the Pentagon just sliiiiide off.
posted by nevercalm at 10:22 AM on October 15, 2005
« Older Paper view technology | Digital Age Fraud Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Rothko at 7:27 PM on October 13, 2005