All of the then current candidates for president were asked the same questions recently by the Boston Globe: 1) Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without warrants, regardless of federal statutes? 2) In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-forc authorization from Congress?(Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMMINENT threat?) 4) Under what circumstances, if any would you sign a bill into law, but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law? 5) Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charge as unlawful enemy combatants? 6) Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself? 7) If congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander-in-chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute? 8) Under what cirumstances, if any, is the president, when operating as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified? 9) Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away? 10) Is there any executive power the Bush administration hs claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
So all of the Democratic candidates answered, and they tend to agree with what I would hope a responsible president would do. You can check out the answers at Boston.com. (I'll go back and fetch the specific website if you wish, I just don't have it on hand) The point is this: McCain is somewhat sensible but a very hawkish about these answers. He *might* be okay. But he declined to answer Question 10, his answer for 9 is "depends on what the Supreme Court says", and his answer to number 5 is right in line with the current trend. Romney is squarely in the current Right Wing Fascist mode. His answers commit him to staying ont the current course. However: Giuliani and Huckabee both declined to answer ANY of these questions. NONE. Thompson didn't either, but he's been eliminated.
Of the current Republican contenders, ONLY McCain shows any promise of supporting the restoration of our basic rights, but only where it suits him. And Giuliani's and Huckabee's silence on these counts is tells volumes. Another Republican administration would be IMHO, be a serious blow to Democracy in this country.
Go to your local bookstore, and just browse thru Wolf's The End Of America. You don't have to buy it or spend your money. Just a little bit of your time. That's all I ask.
Don't say "It can't happen here". It's happened, and it's happening now. I happen to agree with Wolf's assessment that we're much farther down that bad road than we've been before. The empowerment of the Executive (the President) to suspend habeas corpus, and imprison anybody based on the Executive labelling you an "enemy" combatant, and to then imprison you without access to counsel in a place that's beyond jurisdiction, where torture is an acceptable interrogation technique, is just a little more Nazi than Democratic, don't you think. We're not *there* yet, but neither was Germany, and yes, our economic incongruities do give us alot of leverage, we're right now, at a tipping point where our similarities could rapidly degrade until economy is NOT a factor.
There is TOO much power in the executive branch RIGHT NOW, and it sure don't look to me like the Republicans are ready to relinquish it without a fight and without a LOT of pressure from US.
(no subject)
1) Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
2) In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-forc authorization from Congress?(Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMMINENT threat?)
4) Under what circumstances, if any would you sign a bill into law, but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
5) Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charge as unlawful enemy combatants?
6) Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?
7) If congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander-in-chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?
8) Under what cirumstances, if any, is the president, when operating as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?
9) Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?
10) Is there any executive power the Bush administration hs claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
So all of the Democratic candidates answered, and they tend to agree with what I would hope a responsible president would do. You can check out the answers at Boston.com. (I'll go back and fetch the specific website if you wish, I just don't have it on hand) The point is this:
McCain is somewhat sensible but a very hawkish about these answers. He *might* be okay. But he declined to answer Question 10, his answer for 9 is "depends on what the Supreme Court says", and his answer to number 5 is right in line with the current trend.
Romney is squarely in the current Right Wing Fascist mode. His answers commit him to staying ont the current course.
However:
Giuliani and Huckabee both declined to answer ANY of these questions. NONE.
Thompson didn't either, but he's been eliminated.
Of the current Republican contenders, ONLY McCain shows any promise of supporting the restoration of our basic rights, but only where it suits him.
And Giuliani's and Huckabee's silence on these counts is tells volumes.
Another Republican administration would be IMHO, be a serious blow to Democracy in this country.
Go to your local bookstore, and just browse thru Wolf's The End Of America. You don't have to buy it or spend your money. Just a little bit of your time. That's all I ask.
Don't say "It can't happen here". It's happened, and it's happening now.
I happen to agree with Wolf's assessment that we're much farther down that bad road than we've been before. The empowerment of the Executive (the President) to suspend habeas corpus, and imprison anybody based on the Executive labelling you an "enemy" combatant, and to then imprison you without access to counsel in a place that's beyond jurisdiction, where torture is an acceptable interrogation technique, is just a little more Nazi than Democratic, don't you think. We're not *there* yet, but neither was Germany, and yes, our economic incongruities do give us alot of leverage, we're right now, at a tipping point where our similarities could rapidly degrade until economy is NOT a factor.
There is TOO much power in the executive branch RIGHT NOW, and it sure don't look to me like the Republicans are ready to relinquish it without a fight and without a LOT of pressure from US.