Unitary Executive Theory

[Buffy]

You might want to think about some of the implications of the point of this Unitary Executive Theory as it means there is basically no reason for any laws whatsoever. *All* issues associated with expediency are handled,

i was unaware that Bush had declared himself a ''Unitary Executive''

Unitary Executive Theory has been discussed in detail by SC Justice-candidate Alito, as well as numerous Justice Department officials (Attorney Generals Ashcroft and Gonzales and White House Council John Yoo (author of the findings justifying the above discussed actions). While Bush himself has not used the term extensively, it has indeed come up as quoted in the above linked WSJ article:

From Bush's Dec. 3, 2003 statement on signing the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act:

"The executive branch shall implement these provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the

unitary executive

[emphasis in the original document] branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President judges necessary and expedient."

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here: I'd say that actions speak louder than words.

For some reason you conveniently continue to avoid the fact that the law *does not prevent this*

prevent what? if there is a 72 hour wait, there is a problem. if there is no wait, the situation can be handled.

You're misstating the law: All the government has to do is contact the secret court within 72 hours of having gotten *and possibly even acted upon* the information! There's no unreasonable limitation at all. Obeying the law is not hard, it does not expose us to any additional harm *whatsoever,* unless of course there are uses being made of it that are illegal and are being done for purposes not related to the war (as the apparent recording of the phone calls of CNN's Chritianne Amanpour to the US would seem to point to).

are you anticipating some dire consequence of Bush's action directed at the terrorists?

We've already seen it in so far as torture is used by the terrorists to recruit more terrorists, and has slowed cooperation from other countries, even those in the coalition-of-the-willing.

the issue is really where is the line on *who*, would you torture a 10 year old girl if you thought that she *might* be an insurgent?

has a 10 year old girl been tortured, or is this a non-sequitur?

Happened? Who knows? Its secret! It cannot be reviewed. The question is should it be within the range of actions available to the president to protect the country. Writing laws is an exercise in contemplating the possible, not just in proscribing the already committed wrongs. Do you have a position on this? It is relevant to writing the law that should limit this behavior. Or do you believe that *any* action, no matter how horrible, is fair game if it saves American lives? Can you square this with your religious beliefs? Sociopaths like Hitler find themselves with presidential power, and he justified the Holocaust based on the Jews threat to the "survival of the German race." C'mon, you can't think of *any* limits you'd put on presidential power?

and that you insist on saying that's the only alternative shows that the justification for *unlimited* torture simply isn't there.

have i said somewhere that i advocate unlimited torture or is this a misquote?

I am asking you that question. The quote here is pointing out that you seem to claim that any limitation on torture at all will put us in grave danger. That would imply that you belive there should be no limitation at all. That would imply that you think that the scenario of torturing a little girl would be just fine. But that's all trains of implication: I'm giving you the opportunity to clarify what if any limits you think there should be and what we should do in the case of the potential 10-year-old terrorist.

You're really not listening to the answers: its all about defining the lines that we go up to and don't pass. And *agreeing* as a society what those limits are.

as i said, i'm not hearing answers. i'm hearing platitudes and misquotes.

There are answers here, but they are not always easy to accept: the notion that we may have to allow a few of ours die in the pursuit of not only "victory at any cost" but a "just victory."

 

Ask Winston Churchill what it took to allow tens of thousands to die in Coventry because winning the war required that he keep secret the intercepts that foretold of that conflagration. Was it a tough decision? You bet. Was it moral? Hard to say, but it was trading off one bad situation for another bad situation. BUT did he discuss it with others? Actually, yes, and as a result of consensus among a small group, not just hand picked partisans, the decision was made to go ahead with this. Unitary Executive policy says there does not have to be any review or even compliance with the law.

war is a serious business, and it takes serious people to win. i don't think America has the cojones to win a war anymore. we have no consensus on what has to happen, and we have too many people criticizing the hard decisions that have to be made by the leaders. wars are not tea parties.

No one is saying they are tea parties. But can we win them? What about Gulf War I? We won that very handily and got *tremendous* moral authority from it. Do the neo-cons insist that we lost it because we decided that containment was better than replacing Saddam? Yes, but a lot of us--Republicans included--disagree strongly. And not just the "wimpy ones:" oddly enough it comes from the ones who actually have experience with war, and the current war is being conducted by those who don't and who won't listen to those who do, and who call anyone who disagrees with them a traitor as you do here:

but don't send brave people in to battle and then undercut them for political reasons.

How do discussions about specific tactics and policies "undercut" them? Is any dissention on these topics allowed? Should the president always be able to perform any action without any criticism whatsoever if there is a war on? These questions are what are germane to this thread. You should think about them.

i must have missed the better solutions to conduct security surveillence and win the war, could you point them out?

Again you're trying to blast the argument with the irrelevant statement that any limits are tantamount to doing nothing. No one is saying that there should be no surveillance. The question is one of having oversight to prevent abuses. Surveillance *is* an important tactic. Is completely indiscriminant surveillance justified? Should there be any limits?

 

Brain exercise is good for society,

Buffy

[questor]

Buffy, i sense you may have fallen prey to the Great Conservative Conspiracy

Theory, in which the cons are doing all kinds of secret things which, of course, must be bad because they are conservative. i guess the fact that Bush has to obey the ultimate law, the Constitution and will only be in office

a couple of more years in no way lessens the threat he presents to the American way of life. am i to assume that John Kerry or Kennedy, or any of the other democrat demagogues would have conducted a war more to your sensibilities? the shallow depth of thought given to certain issues and the inability to understand cause and effect renders discussion almost useless. there are multitudes of liberal watchdogs shadowing Bush's every move. do you think he will manage to hoodwink them?

[questor]

since the current attacks on Bush center on two issues: wire tap surveillence

and torture, i would like to pose a couple of questions.

1. who were the people who were wire tapped?

2. what were the reasons for the wiretaps?

3. how many wiretaps were performed?

4. what type information was obtained?

5 were lives disrupted, false information disseminated, arrests made, plots uncovered?

6. was the fact that leaks are a constant problem for the administration

a factor in the secrecy?

7. can you trust a person like Pat Leahy to go against his leaking habits

to help our national security? or Teddy? or the Press?

 

Torture.

1. do we know the particular parts of McCains bill that were opposed by the administration?

2. do we know why the admin opposed them?

3. did Bush or Chaney describe the particular form of torture that was his favorite?

4. are there studies that indicate gentle and humane treatment is the best choice to gather information from murderers?

5. would it not be best to let the prisoners go, so the world would think better of us?

6. is it not best to always fight wars based upon global perception, rather than for your own protection?

7. since our war is illegal, would it not be best to give the prisoners some

money for reparations? this may make them like us and they may tell other insurgents how nice we are.

[GAHD]

Somehow I'm thinking the democrats would have stopped the war and left Chaney-oil high & dry once the populous destroyed his pipelines in their country. Well, that's if he didn't cut them in on it too.

 

Edit: That's exactly what she's saying questor; The president doesn't need to tell ANYONE Who What When Where or Why.

edit2: the question is...Should they?

[questor]

i think what she is saying is that the NSA needs to check with the courts or with Teddy Kennedy before they do anything to protect us.

 

as far as the Iraqi pipelines, i hope we do get some money from them for saving those ungrateful Iraqis from getting slaughtered. they have done damn little to help us or show any gratitude.

[GAHD]

as far as the Iraqi pipelines, i hope we do get some money from them for saving those ungrateful Iraqis from getting slaughtered. they have done damn little to help us or show any gratitude.

:lol:

[TheBigDog]

So gang, is this a good way to run a country? Why or why not? Is it still okay if a Democrat is the president? Is this going to be yet another interesting experiment in the law of unintended consequences? Is this the wave of the future? Are there parallels here to other governments in recent history? Can you say Baathist?

Well Buffy, I think that you and I are cut from very similar cloth. One of the differences that I think we have is our level of libertarianism. And you make me jealous with your mastery of the written word.

 

Is this a good way to run a country? This is not how we are running the country, this is how we are waging war against an unconventional and determined enemy. The administration has informed the Senate Intelligence Committee about these actions from the beginning to insure that appropriate political entities outside the Whitehouse would know that it was happening.

 

Is it still okay if a Democrat is the president? Yes, in fact it was used by both Democratic presidents from my lifetime. (Technically I was born during the Johnson administration, and while I am sure it is safe to say he used it, I have not read any accounts of that.)

 

Is this going to be yet another interesting experiment in the law of unintended consequences? Yes, but not because of abuse of power. The lesson is going to be that for the chance of short term political gain certain elected officials will sacrifice our ability to perform these secret war operations. You used the example of Winston Churchill in a later post, and the fact that there were thousands of deaths because he chose to keep a secret that was of greater strategic importance for victory than the immediate need to save lives. In WWII the word on the street was "Loose lips sink ships". What is the slogan of today?

 

Are there parallels here to other governments in recent history? Yes there are parallels, but they are usually made in the context of spying on your own people because of a domestic agenda of secret police style rule. That is not the case here by any stretch. We are using this as a tool for national security. Not a method to weed out our political opponents. Is there a single political opponent of the president who has any cause to be shy about it?

 

Can you say Baathist? In this case we have not a single US citizen who has been affected in any fashion for these acts taking place. And you are comparing the wiretaps of phone calls to suspected enemies of the state to the Batthist party's slaughter and terrorizing of innocent people to rule through fear? That type of unfounded comparison is unhealthy for maintaining respect for the hard decisions that our elected representatives need to make on our behalf. Regardless of the political party in power.

 

I am with you on the need to be vigilant in preserving our liberties. But I would caution you to make more fair comparisons about our governments actions and what they represent.

 

Always good typing to you Buffy,

 

Bill

[Buffy]

Unfortunately, so much of this debate is based on "talking points" on both sides. That we're cut from the same cloth is not surprising Bill: we're in the middle of the road! Yah, I'm a libertarian (that's why I'm a Repubican!), but even from the middle, its important to note that the administration is not just "protecting us" they've been either paranoid or so unbelievably self-righteous about their beliefs that it is concerning even for those of us who are not "Bush-haters"--whatever the heck that is (evidence of paranoia I would suggest).

 

Here are some points where I see facts that differ that concern me:

this is how we are waging war against an unconventional and determined enemy.

That's the talking point talking: There's no question that al Qaeda is unconventional, but when the vast majority of the experts (including McCain) who are experts at torture and international relations say "this is not worth it," then its a really good idea to listen. I know there are those who feel we need to blindly trust the man in charge--I do back the notions inherent in representative democracy--but when those who are leading won't listen to anyone with any experience, its worrying. It gets even more worrying when this sort of problem is addressed in a transparently patronizing manner: Bush had a big photo op with former Secretaries of State and Defence that lasted *10 minutes* giving each of the attendees *23 seconds* of input! Now I'm starting to get scared.

The administration has informed the Senate Intelligence Committee about these actions from the beginning to insure that appropriate political entities outside the Whitehouse would know that it was happening.

That's actually *not* true, even if you call "informing the SIC" talking only to the Republican's on the committee--which has been the common practice in this administration rather than bringing in the ranking members of *both* parties on the committee which was the practice before Bush.

 

This is why even *Arlen Spector* broached the possibility of these actions being cause for impeachment this weekend. The administration is not even keeping *partisans* in the loop. That's why this is fundamentally different than Kennedy trying to assasinate Castro, which was backed by many in congress. If you're looking for an example of Democrats doing this, the only one I can really think of is the Gulf of Tonkin coverup (for you young'uns, Johnson used an attack on a ship supposedly in international waters off Vietnam as an excuse to ramp up the war, when the ship was definitely in North Vietnamese territory and may not even have been shot at), but that sure turned out badly eh? And I don't think I need to talk about Nixon...

Yes, but not because of abuse of power. The lesson is going to be that for the chance of short term political gain certain elected officials will sacrifice our ability to perform these secret war operations.

So you're calling John McCain, Arlen Specter and even Orrin Hatch "seekers of short-term political gain?" Sure if its just the Democrats harping about this, but when people in the *same party* start having qualms--and remember, we're talking about stalwarts in safe seats--then its time to start thinking that maybe we should be questioning the wisdom of these actions.

In WWII the word on the street was "Loose lips sink ships". What is the slogan of today?

What should it have been when the Republicans were saying "no nation building" when Somalia or Yugoslavia were major initiatives of the Clinton administration? Was it not okay for them to question those policies?

 

Unfortunately, by slandering the "opposition" as "traitors" the extremists in the Republican party have made it impossible for us to "be on the same side" and disagree. I think the slogans of WWII and earlier were effective because the attitude then was of a common goal among all Americans, in spite of--how soon we forget--strong opposition to the war by Republicans, Democrats, Nazi sympathizers (Lindbergh!) and Communists alike. We all swung together without a single "I told you so, traitor" like we hear from the O'Reilly's and Coulters of today. Its the *hostility* and *divisiveness* of the *tone* of the debate that are causing problems. I think we'd all find we have more to agree about than to disagree about if we'd all give it a break and *talked* about it.

 

We are using this as a tool for national security. Not a method to weed out our political opponents.

Talking point again. My example is not Nixon-style break-into-Ellsberg's-therapist's-office: its about fair differences in *policy* beliefs. To reiterate, my example is one where a future administration believed that confiscating weapons larger than say a .22 were "essential to national security" and used the NSA to track everyone who had guns and locate them. Just as Bush has done--and as you'll see in a discussion on the topic here--one can interpret the second amendment in a way that would construe this to be legal. Because the then administration knew that would be unpopular (as the current one seems to have guessed about this issue), it would be done in secret. Would you agree to it then?

Can you say Baathist?

A dangerous talking point: if you act like them, even if its for the right cause (can you say "ends justify the means?" Oooh, sounds like the SDS!), you have compromised your moral superiority. It costs in both internal and world-wide perceptions of American motives and morality. You need to put these costs into your calculus.

In this case we have not a single US citizen who has been affected in any fashion for these acts taking place.

Well, yeah, so far, but the fact of the matter is that the *method* is to listen to *everything*. This is not "we don't have time to find every phone the bad guys are going to use", this is "we have to record and listen to every call that crosses the US border." The notion that "people who don't break the law have nothing to be afraid of" has never been a popularly supported notion even among conservatives (especially those caught by speed trap cameras with their paramours), but yes, there may be an excuse for it in situations like this, but again, that's *not* the issue: its that there is *no* oversight going on, even with those predisposed to agree with the assessment! That's why Specter is calling this activity impeachable. The reason why he and others who are *friends* of the administration are concerned is that there is *no* excuse whatsoever not to keep them in the loop, unless at the root, the activities *really are* bad. Or unless there really is a group who thinks that the president is imperial and should have no oversight at all, which is both bad now and bad for the prescendent it sets.

 

Its really important to understand that the argument here is not academic: these are not the actions of an administration that even seems to believe in democracy let alone being absolutely cavalier about being an international bully.

 

Thanks for the reasonable discussion, Bill!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[questor]

in a discussion like this, i would say that a few questions would be in order.

 

1. who has the NSA actually listened to? does anyone know?

2. what is done with the information?

3. who has been harmed or compromised in this endeavor?

4. how many plots or threats have been discovered?

5. what are the true constitutional executive powers in wartime?

6. do we not already have congressional oversight that has been consulted on this matter?

7. what should be the action taken against a member of the oversight committee who is guilty of leaking these national security findings?

8. seeing the necessity for immediate action on telephone or email transmission, what would be the better way to accomplish this mission?

 

i think Bush is determined that no more attacks will occur on his watch. it seems the opponents don't care as long as it would hurt Bush.

for the ''slippery slopers'', the masters of non-sequiturs, i don't see how good surveillence is going to ruin the country. i can see how more attacks can severly damage us.

[C1ay]

Our current Supreme Court nominee in the US was quoted recently discussing this theory: "makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that, the president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power -- the whole thing."...

 

So gang, is this a good way to run a country? Why or why not? Is it still okay if a Democrat is the president? Is this going to be yet another interesting experiment in the law of unintended consequences? Is this the wave of the future? Are there parallels here to other governments in recent history? Can you say Baathist?

Sometimes I wonder if we might be better off with a board of executives. An odd number of individuals like the Supreme Court with one of them designated as the Chief Executive. Imagine the polarization our court would suffer if the Supreme Court consisted of one lone judge, the final arbiter of the judicial branch. Imagine trying to find that one person with an ideology suitable enough to satisfy the people.

 

In neither the legislative branch or the judicial branch have we entrusted the power to a lone individual. Why then have we done so with the executive branch? We have an entire branch of government wielded by one person, a person that is not a representative of the people. Why should we keep playing this partisan see-saw game with choosing a President? All we keep getting is one extreme or the other. Our choices in the last election cycle boiled down to a right wing religious zealot versus a left wing communist socialite. Should we really allow either of these ideologies to rule independantly?

 

Me thinks our ship would get to our destination sooner if we didn't keep alternating captains that only know how to steer left or right. This constant zig zag is taking a much higher toll on our fuel than if we just found a heading in the middle and kept it on course.

[C1ay]

as far as the Iraqi pipelines, i hope we do get some money from them for saving those ungrateful Iraqis from getting slaughtered. they have done damn little to help us or show any gratitude.

You need to find some alternative sources of information. Judging 25 million people from the actions of 10,000 foreign insurgents is not a quality assessment of the Iraqis gratitude. Unfortunately, this is all the general media wants to cover because the bad news from Iraq generates more money than the good news B)

[InfiniteNow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_faction

The existence of a factional system can have serious negative consequences for a broader organisation.

 

If factional strife becomes intensive and public, the broader organisation may suffer from perceptions of disunity. Taken one step further, if the conflict is particularly severe, it may cause ruptures within the organisation that seriously impede its effectiveness, leading to break-up or collapse of the broader organisation.

 

To avoid harm to the broader organisation, factional operations are usually conducted under strong secrecy and with minimal public scrutiny. This, however, can lead to the proliferation of unethical behaviour. Warfare between the factions may lead to tactics such as ballot box-stuffing, stack-outs, membership fraud, and other generally fraudulent conduct. Individuals who abandon (or “rat on”) a faction may be subject to intense personal vendettas where their former comrades go about sabotaging their careers.

 

A climate of intense factional conflict can also motivate individuals to focus on attacking their factional enemies rather than furthering the broader organisation.

The article also expressed some positive aspects of factions, but those were generally limited to groups whose goal was to improve society and the lives of everyone, all life... that "broader organisation" which encompasses us all.

 

Ultimately, it is a numbers game. What's good for one will not be good for another, and you just have to try as best you can to obtain the maximum returns, but this (from my limited perspective) does not currently appear to be the underlying and prominent motivation of our decision makers for the acts being discussed in this thread.

 

 

 

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0210/15/i_ins.01.html

IBRAHIM: There is Saddam the madman. His hubris is unequaled and his ego is unequaled, and he absolutely takes no advice.

 

UTLEY: Saddam Hussein's cold, brutal side was on display at this meeting of Iraq's top officials in 1979 as he seized total power and eliminated possible rivals.

 

In a calm voice, he claimed he had uncovered a plot. One by one, he read of names. 66 men were taken out of the hall. 22 were executed, the rests disappeared into prisons. Some were long-time friends and allies. With a wave of the cigar in his hand, Saddam Hussein sealed their fates. And then the tyrant wept.

 

No doubt he knows the fate of those who live and rule by the sword, who are surrounded by yes-men in fear of their lives. The tyrant becomes dangerously isolated, a loner.

I am not arguing that Bush is executing people and then weeping, but the similarities are becoming more and more disconcerting... IMHO

[TheFaithfulStone]

Hey questor, your tough questions have easy answers.

 

It's like a survey!

 

 

1. who were the people who were wire tapped? who knows. maybe you. maybe saddam.

 

2. what were the reasons for the wiretaps? who knows. maybe they were plotting an attack. maybe they opposed the war.

 

3. how many wiretaps were performed? who knows. maybe a few justifiable ones. maybe they've been listening in on 10% of all us phone calls.

 

4. what type information was obtained? who knows. maybe some stuff about plan hijackings. maybe a list of people who agreed with your aunt martha when she said she disagreed with the war.

 

5 were lives disrupted, false information disseminated, arrests made, plots uncovered? who knows. it's illegal to tell people if you've been arrested under certain security circumstance, and we DO take people to other countries to hold them.

 

6. was the fact that leaks are a constant problem for the administration

a factor in the secrecy? loaded question, but who knows. maybe they were concerend investigations would be compromised. maybe they were excercising most of the (:confused: options above and knew it would be bad news if word were to get out.

 

7. can you trust a person like Pat Leahy to go against his leaking habits

to help our national security? or Teddy? or the Press? can you trust the federal government to always have your best interest at heart ant to never abuse it's powers or act in inappropriate ways? like japanese internment camps? or watergate? or dinking interns in the oval office?

 

Torture.

1. do we know the particular parts of McCains bill that were opposed by the administration? Yes. It banned torture and inhumane treatment of US Prisoners.

 

2. do we know why the admin opposed them? No.

 

3. did Bush or Chaney describe the particular form of torture that was his favorite?p No, but the Pentagon likes waterboarding.

http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=P12780_0_6_0_C

 

4. are there studies that indicate gentle and humane treatment is the best choice to gather information from murderers? No, but there are plenty that say torture doesn't work either.

http:// http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html

 

5. would it not be best to let the prisoners go, so the world would think better of us? This is a non-sequiter, and has nothing to do with torture. Of the 48,000 people or so that the US has imprisoned in Iraq, less than 1/2 a percent have been charged with a crime. It might be nice of us to let the INNOCENT people go.

 

6. is it not best to always fight wars based upon global perception, rather than for your own protection? Again, nothing to do with torture... but uh.. yeah. In a guerilla war there are two ways to win - you either make every one so afraid of you that no-one dares move. Unfortunately, eventually, you lose this way when people realize that you can't kill them all Or, you make people hate the guerrillas more than they hate you. That one works pretty well. Ask TE Lawerence.

 

7. since our war is illegal, would it not be best to give the prisoners some money for reparations? this may make them like us and they may tell other insurgents how nice we are. again, nothing to do with torture. and reperations are a BAD IDEA all around. Always have been. See Versailles. See Reconstruction.

 

Okay, now that all of your question are answered do you see the argument? Not being cool with this requires trusting the government to be benevolent and good. As PJ O'Rourke (your guy) but it, "The government has a legal monopoly on force. That scares conservatives, and comforts liberals."

 

So the "conservative" thing to do would be to be pissed off, right?

 

TFS

[Tarantism]

*i am responding to the first post of this thread.

 

the reasons behind checks and balances were to prevent something like that*this* from happening....i dont like it, not one bit. if one person can decide then i believe that gets rid of the entire purpose of democracy!

 

no way.

[questor]

it is quite interesting to read the posts here and see the total lack of understanding of cause and effect. the people here who are most dissatisfied in Bush's style of management are also absent when it comes time to offer better ideas. how do you think the young female reporter recently captured

by the insurgents feels about the ''moral high ground''? i can tell you... she is scared sh..less, and is only interested in being freed. only you who are safe and being protected by our military can afford the luxury of monday morning quarterbacking. wouldn't you be the first to start screaming for Bush's head when another attack comes? do you not understand the necessity of quick action? if America becomes all liberal, what an easy takeover for a warlike power.

[InfiniteNow]

it is quite interesting to read the posts here and see the total lack of understanding of cause and effect. the people here who are most dissatisfied in Bush's style of management are also absent when it comes time to offer better ideas.

I don't have to have a better plan in place for me to know that Mr. Bush has made mistakes and that many of his and his cohorts decisions will have ramifications for years to come based on the precedent they've set. I do not need to offer a resolution before I speak in order to be allowed to discuss ideas and opinions with others. Usually, when people open a dialogue such as this, that's when the best answers come and eventually get implemented. If we refuse to analyze *our* (yes, I am part of this country, this planet, this universe too) mistakes, and shudder at the thought of revisiting them, instead forcing others into a defensive posture by throwing emotional and only tangentially related arguments at them as distraction, we will be doomed to endlessly repeat them.

[lindagarrette]

An elected official has no more support of everyone than a despot. Decisions that affect everyone are delegated to that authority and once in power, it takes a long time or a revolution to overthrow the policies being implemented. The administration considers opposing views to be unpatriotic, even in a republican form of government. Fortunately the opportunity for an overthrow is not too many years away. Let's take the time until then to teach constituants how badly they have been represented by the current leadership in the US.