Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 41224
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/07/08 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/8     

2006/1/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41224 Activity:kinda low
1/4     Hey, why pass laws at all when you have a king?
        http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban?mode=PF
        \_ What's the big deal? He's only going to ignore the law if he wants
           to ...
        \_ Another reason to block alito.
        \_ URL tinyfied to please annoying, anal retentive motd block warden:
           http://tinyurl.com/bdj8g  -John
        \_ I would like to hear Bush supporter's point of view on this one.
           Please enlighten us.
           \_ I'm not a Bush supporter but I can guess: Protecting the American
              People! War on Terror! Liberty! Freedom! 9/11! Liberty!
              Freedom! Terrorists! Freedom! Liberty!
           \_ If you believe in an strong executive then it follows that
              the inherent emergency power of the executive is subject
              only to those limits explicit in the constitution. As there
              are no applicable limits (the eighth arguably does not apply
              as torture is not used as a punishment in this context), it
              is within the executive's discretion to employ torture. This
              view also implies that the executive's decisions are above
              court review except in cases where there is direct conflict
              with the text of the constitution.
              [ Note that there is a "fifth freedom" view which says that
                even the constitution is not a limit on the executive's
                power when the survival of the republic is threatened.
                BUSHCO does not seem to publically adhere to this view. ]
              \_ Who does adhere to that view? (There is nobody to
                 review if said survival is sufficiently threatened.
                 By some accounts, sodomy threatens the republic...)
                 \_ While I do not know of any prominent figures
                    who publicly endorse the fifth freedom view,
                    I would argue that people like Amd. Poindexter
                    implicitly accept it.
                    For the sake of argument I will say that the
                    majority of America has implicitly acquiesced
                    to the fifth freedom view. I think that the
                    framers conception of the CinC power or other
                    limits on the executive power cannot be reco-
                    nciled w/ the fact that 1st strike is basically
                    entrusted solely to the President's discretion.
                    If the President chooses to exercise this cap-
                    ability, there will realistically be no review.
                    This to me suggests that the modern Presidency
                    has practically unlimited powers.
                    In day to day terms, it probably means the
                    while the President can't shoot you in broad
                    daylight for being a democrat, he probably
                    can deploy any covert means against you for
                    the same w/o any real review.
                    \_ "Stroke of the pen, law of the land.  Cool!"
                    \_ First strike and other military defense issues
                       I think fall under the general head-of-military
                       designation. For Iraq, Bush was sort of pre-authorized
                       to decide on war, and the same situation exists for
                       the nukes I guess. Some of the smaller operations
                       might be weaseled around by questioning the
                       definition "war". Anyway, I don't think we
                       are at a point where the Constitution does not
                       at least in theory grant US citizens protection
                       versus military operations, covert or not.
                       I suppose if they did their job well enough then
                       practically the question would not come up.
                       \_ I agree that the modern interpretation
                          is that the CinC power encompasses the
                          ability to deploy the nuclear arsenal.
                          but my point is that the framers prob.
                          did not intend to vest a single man w/
                          the power to unilaterally decide the
                          fate of every living thing on the
                          planet.
                          What if the President exercises this
                          power in circumstances (objectively)
                          not constituting a threat to the repu-
                          blic? Who really will be left to reve-
                          iew the decision? What remedial action
                          can really be taken? I think that the
                          answer is that no one will review and
                          no remedial action is available. This
                          to me means the President possess uni-
                          lateral discretion to wield almost abs.
                          power as the CinC.
                          From this one could argue that under
                          this power, the President could deploy
                          less than abs. force against arbitrary
                          targets w/o any limits on his power.
                          From this one could argue that the Pres.
                          could deploy less than abs. force w/o
                          limits on his discretion under the same
                          power.
                          Re Pre-authorized: If the President has
                          been preauthorized to act under certain
                          conditions, what happens when he acts
                          outside of those conditions? Will there
                          really be a Congressional hearing? If
                          not, then Congress has basically given
                          him unlimited discretion.
                          \_ Why wouldn't there be a hearing? They can
                             impeach the president. He could mess things
                             up pretty royally before then, perhaps
                             irrevocably, but it doesn't really nullify the
                             separation of powers except in the apocalyptic
                             sense. Basically he could destroy the other
                             branches of government. Maybe Nixon, instead of
                             resigning, could have started WWIII instead. But
                             outside of war, I can't see that the distinction
                             is noteworthy. The power to destroy isn't the
                             same as absolute power.
                          no remedial action is available.
                          If the President possess unilateral
                          discretion to wield almost absolute
                          power via the CinC power, is it real-
                          istic to say that there are limits on
                          his ability to deploy less than this?
                          not, then the President has been pre-
                          authorized to act in any situation and
                          Congress has implicitly given him abs.
                          power (one wonders if Congress can do
                          this).
2025/07/08 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/8     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2012/11/18-12/18 [Recreation/Celebrity, Politics/Domestic/911, Computer/SW/Apps/Media] UID:54537 Activity:nil
11/16   Anonymous responds to be labeled a "terrorist" by Isreali media:
        http://t.co/0lIgC166
	...
2011/5/5-7/30 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:54104 Activity:nil
5/4     So, Bin Laden, star of Fox News, dies at 51.  But really the
        question is, when are we declaring war on pakistan for
        1. harboring a known terrorist
        2. taking our money ($ billions) for "antiterror" operations?
        Clearly we got scammed here.
	...
2010/1/4-19 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:53611 Activity:moderate
1/4     Why the fascination with blowing up airplanes? Airports have tight
        security. It doesn't seem worth it. It's far easier to derail a
        train or set off explosives in a crowded place like a theater or
        sporting event. As many or more people will be killed and it will
        still make the news. I don't get why all of our security, and
        apprently much of the terrorist's resources, is focused on airplanes.
	...
2009/5/31-6/5 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:53062 Activity:nil
5/31    Tiller terrorist was a classic right wing nut - "sovereign citizen,"
        tax protester, Operation Rescue member... I wonder if he had a freep
        account.
        http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/31/737357/--Suspect-Identified-in-Tiller-Assassination
        \_ Operation Rescue is the definition of domestic terrorism.
        \_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2262376/posts
	...
2009/4/22-28 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:52888 Activity:nil
4/21    Hey Dr. jblack, turns out not only were the lying, they
        tortured people to make their case:
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090422/pl_mcclatchy/3217245
        \_ And in other news, stress positions and waterboarding prevented
           another terrorist attack.  So much for the meme that torture doesn't
           work.
	...
2009/4/23-28 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:52899 Activity:nil
4/20    Ok, I am not a Jew hater.  In fact, most of my so-called "white"
        friends turned out to be Jews.   And I am fortunate to have
        \_ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UeBZiz_Dks
           \_ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3Xiy5aK3AU&NR=1
        opportunity to work with whole bunch Israelis and working with them
        has been an absolute pleasure.  HOWEVER, I just failed to understand
	...
2009/4/21-23 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:52884 Activity:kinda low
4/20    Ok, I am not a Jew hater.  In fact, most of my so-called "white"
        friends turned out to be Jews.   And I am fortunate to have
        opportunity to work with whole bunch Israelis and working with them
        has been an absolute pleasure.  HOWEVER, I just failed to understand
        why people got offended by the speech by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  In my
        relatively neutral point of view (I am an Asian),  most of what he
	...
2009/1/28-2/6 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:52481 Activity:low
1/28    One of the criticisms of the Patriot Act was that it was rammed
        through without any time for legislators to properly review
        it.  Isn't that the same problem with this $800B bill?
        \_ Is this $800B bill hundreds upon hundreds of pages long? It's not
           coming off the heels of a crisis in national defense; rather, it's
           attempting to fix a spiraling economy. Plus it seems that the
	...
2009/1/9-13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:52346 Activity:high
1/9     What You Don't Know About Gaza:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/opinion/08khalidi.html?em
        \_ "As the occupying power, Israel has the responsibility under the
            Fourth Geneva Convention to see to the welfare of the civilian
            population of the Gaza Strip."
           Rubbish. Hamas, as the elected government, is responsible for the
	...
2012/12/18-2013/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:54559 Activity:nil
12/18   Bush kills. Bushmaster kills.
        \_ Sandy Huricane kills. Sandy Hook kills.
           \_ bitch
	...
2011/5/1-7/30 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:54102 Activity:nil
5/1     Osama bin Ladin is dead.
        \_ So is the CSUA.
           \_ Nope, it's actually really active.
              \_ Are there finally girls in the csua?
              \_ Is there a projects page?
              \_ Funneling slaves -> stanford based corps != "active"
	...
2010/11/8-2011/1/13 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:53998 Activity:nil
11/8    Have you read how Bush says his pro-life stance was influenced
        by his mother keeping one of her miscarriages in a jar, and showing
        it to him?  These are headlines The Onion never dreamed of
	...
2010/11/2-2011/1/13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:54001 Activity:nil
11/2    California Uber Alles is such a great song
        \_ Yes, and it was written about Jerry Brown. I was thinking this
           as I cast my vote for Meg Whitman. I am independent, but I
           typically vote Democrat (e.g., I voted for Boxer). However, I
           can't believe we elected this retread.
           \_ You voted for the billionaire that ran HP into the ground
	...
2010/5/26-6/30 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:53845 Activity:nil
5/26    "China could join moves to sanction North Korea"
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100526/ap_on_re_as/as_clinton_south_korea
        How did Hillary manage to do that when we're also asking China to
        concede on the economic front at the same time?
         \_ China doesn't want NK to implode. NK is a buffer between SK and
            China, or in other words a large buffer between a strong US ally and
	...
2010/4/28-5/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:53808 Activity:nil
4/28    Laura Bush ran a stop sign and killed someone in 1963:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books/28laura.html?no_interstitial
        How come she didn't go to jail?
        \_ Car drivers rarely go to jail for killing people.  -tom
        \_ Ted Kennedy killed a girl. Dick Cheney shot a man.
        \_ Ted Kennedy killed a girl. Hillary and Dick Cheney both shot a man.
	...
2010/2/21-3/9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:53717 Activity:nil
2/18    If not 0 then 1 - wasn't that the basis of the logic of the bush
        administration on torture?  If we do it, it's legal, and since
        torture is illegal, therefore we don't torture?
        \_ Bush is a great computer scientist.
           \_ He must be, given that he defeated the inventor of the Internet
              and AlGorithm.
	...
2009/12/25-2010/1/19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:53603 Activity:nil
12/24   Why San Francisco and union and government suck:
        http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/12/unions-graft-stunning-incompetence-make.html
        \_ http://www.burbed.com/2010/01/03/san-francisco-richer-and-richer-and-richer
           San Francisco to become richer and richer and richer. It's
           Disneyland for adults! YAY!!!
        \_ No doubt that there is plenty of corruption in San Francisco that
	...
Cache (5488 bytes)
www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban?mode=PF
The Boston Globe Bush could bypass new torture ban Waiver right is reserved By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006 WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief. After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said. in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks." Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law. A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment." But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack. he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case," the official added. David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit. Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. The president and his aides argued that the Constitution gives the commander in chief the authority to bypass the 1978 law when necessary to protect national security. They also argued that Congress implicitly endorsed that power when it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of the attacks. Legal academics and human rights organizations said Bush's signing statement and his stance on the wiretapping law are part of a larger agenda that claims exclusive control of war-related matters for the executive branch and holds that any involvement by Congress or the courts should be minimal. Vice President Dick Cheney recently told reporters, ''I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it. I would argue that the actions that we've taken are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president." Since the 2001 attacks, the administration has also asserted the power to bypass domestic and international laws in deciding how to detain prisoners captured in the Afghanistan war. It also has claimed the power to hold any US citizen Bush designates an ''enemy combatant" without charges or access to an attorney. And in 2002, the administration drafted a secret legal memo holding that Bush could authorize interrogators to violate antitorture laws when necessary to protect national security. After the memo was leaked to the press, the administration eliminated the language from a subsequent version, but it never repudiated the idea that Bush could authorize officials to ignore a law. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales disclosed during his confirmation hearing that the administration believed that antitorture laws and treaties did not restrict interrogators at overseas prisons because the Constitution does not apply abroad. In response, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, filed an amendment to a Defense Department bill explicitly saying that that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of where they are held. McCain's office did not return calls seeking comment yesterday. The White House tried hard to kill the McCain amendment. Cheney lobbied Congress to exempt the CIA from any interrogation limits, and Bush threatened to veto the bill, arguing that the executive branch has exclusive authority over war policy. But after veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress approved it, Bush called a press conference with McCain, praised the measure, and said he would accept it. Legal specialists said the president's signing statement called into question his comments at the press conference. Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, called Bush's signing statement an ''in-your-face affront" to both McCain and to Congress.
Cache (5488 bytes)
tinyurl.com/bdj8g -> www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban?mode=PF
The Boston Globe Bush could bypass new torture ban Waiver right is reserved By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006 WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief. After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said. in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks." Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law. A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment." But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack. he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case," the official added. David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit. Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. The president and his aides argued that the Constitution gives the commander in chief the authority to bypass the 1978 law when necessary to protect national security. They also argued that Congress implicitly endorsed that power when it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of the attacks. Legal academics and human rights organizations said Bush's signing statement and his stance on the wiretapping law are part of a larger agenda that claims exclusive control of war-related matters for the executive branch and holds that any involvement by Congress or the courts should be minimal. Vice President Dick Cheney recently told reporters, ''I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it. I would argue that the actions that we've taken are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president." Since the 2001 attacks, the administration has also asserted the power to bypass domestic and international laws in deciding how to detain prisoners captured in the Afghanistan war. It also has claimed the power to hold any US citizen Bush designates an ''enemy combatant" without charges or access to an attorney. And in 2002, the administration drafted a secret legal memo holding that Bush could authorize interrogators to violate antitorture laws when necessary to protect national security. After the memo was leaked to the press, the administration eliminated the language from a subsequent version, but it never repudiated the idea that Bush could authorize officials to ignore a law. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales disclosed during his confirmation hearing that the administration believed that antitorture laws and treaties did not restrict interrogators at overseas prisons because the Constitution does not apply abroad. In response, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, filed an amendment to a Defense Department bill explicitly saying that that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of where they are held. McCain's office did not return calls seeking comment yesterday. The White House tried hard to kill the McCain amendment. Cheney lobbied Congress to exempt the CIA from any interrogation limits, and Bush threatened to veto the bill, arguing that the executive branch has exclusive authority over war policy. But after veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress approved it, Bush called a press conference with McCain, praised the measure, and said he would accept it. Legal specialists said the president's signing statement called into question his comments at the press conference. Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, called Bush's signing statement an ''in-your-face affront" to both McCain and to Congress.