[http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/bushs-unchecked-executive-power-v.html]

Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: Bush's unchecked Executive power v. the Founding principles of the U.S.

I recently found this blog by Glenn Greenwald. Glenn is the author of the New York Times Best-Selling book, How Would A Patriot Act?, a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released May, 2006.

For all you Federalists out there - and I know there are plenty, since I love the Federalist Papers with a passion myself - this article is perhaps the best critique of the Bush Administration's aggregation of unchecked Executive Power that I have read.

Just as Nixon famously said, "If the President does it, that means it's not illegal."

Glenn writes, "The Administration is expressly claiming that the President does have the right to violate laws of Congress because his executive power is absolute and thus cannot be restricted by anything. And rather than applying this theory of unchecked executive power to a single case (as the Reagan Administration did in Iran-contra), the Bush Administration has arrogated unto itself this monarchical power as a general proposition, applicable to each and every issue which can be said to relate, however generally, to this undeclared "war" against terrorism."

    To open up the discussion on the blogsite, I would like ANY blogger to state their position on whether the decision to invade Iraq was right or wrong.
    If your position has changed since 2003, please note how it has changed.
    If you claim that the Iraq invasion and occupation was the right course of action, please include your reasons why.
    If you argue that the Iraq episode was not justified, then or since other issues have come to the forefront, please note underlying arguments as well.

    John McCain recently stated the he feels thats the 2006 mid-term elections might turn out to be a referendum on the Iraq war, so I feel this discussion is important and timely.

    Below I am posting 2 articles, one discussing Chuck Hagel, whom I respect greatly, and the other written by Stephen Zunes, a professor at USF, and I know it might vex some to learn that the 2nd article concerns the US, Israel, and Lebanon's Hezbollah, but it is quite informative, and really puts certain issues in their proper perspectives.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060820/ap_on_el_pr/hagel_republicans

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0819-25.htm

cheers

This lady has some ideas about the root causes of islamic terrorism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060818/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Ever since President Bush was forced to admit that he was spying on Americans' telephone calls and e-mail without warrants, his lawyers have fought to keep challenges to the program out of the courts. On Thursday, that plan failed. A federal judge in Detroit declared the eavesdropping program to be illegal and unconstitutional. She also offered a scathing condemnation of what lies behind the wiretapping - Bush's attempt to expand his powers to the point that he can place himself beyond the reach of Congress, judges or the Constitution.

"There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," wrote Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the U.S. District Court in Detroit. Her decision was based on a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

She said Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act when he ordered the National Security Agency to spy without a warrant on international phone calls and e-mail by Americans and foreign residents of the United States. She noted that the surveillance law was passed to prohibit just this sort of presidential abuse of power and provided ample flexibility for gathering vital intelligence. She also said that the program violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as the rights of free speech and association granted by the First Amendment.

The ruling eviscerated the absurd notion on which the administration's arguments have been based: that Congress authorized Bush to do whatever he thinks is necessary when it authorized the invasion of Afghanistan.

It's good news that this ruling exists at all. Bush's lawyers tried to have the entire suit thrown out on national security grounds, a tactic they have used in an alarming number of cases.

No sooner had this ruling been issued than Congress, who has been searching for ways to give legal cover to an illegal spying program, began calling for new laws to overcome Taylor's objections. Republicans quickly pointed out that Taylor was appointed by President Jimmy Carter and that some of the many precedents she cited were written by liberal judges. These efforts to undermine Taylor's arguments will undoubtedly continue while the White House appeals the decision, and the outcome in the conservative 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is uncertain.

But for now, with a careful, thoroughly grounded opinion, one judge in Michigan has done what 535 members of Congress have so abysmally failed to do. She has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration and shown why issues of this kind belong within the constitutional process created more than two centuries ago to handle them.

Of course, Bush is appealing the decision. And for now is not indicating he will obey the court ruling on grounds of National Security. Click the link above for the Yahoo! News story . . .

For more, visit www.dcoffline.com

Off the cuff and with no further research, Scottie, you're making this way too personal. I'm not pressuring you and you only to answer any of my posts."civility and "gloves off" do not mix. This is your site, too, and you can post on anything you want, but I would appreciate:

a) a post on something other Israel and the Middle East.

b) A little less beligerance

And to answer your question; off the cuff and with no further research. Yes I think Iraq was the right thing to do. I wish it would have been sold a different way, and I wish it would have gone a lot better, but I believe it was the right thing to do.

This site was created for a free exchange of ideas...and the reason, Scottie, you were invited on the site is mainly because we will NEVER agree on certain issues. It is not necessary for everyone to agree with me...or you...to post. That's the fricking point of the fricking site. You can post all you want regardless of your tone. But you will never get another response from me until that tone is BOTH intellectually honest AND civil, and CONSIDERABLY less personal.

Furthermore, I would like this site to be a more public site, and the only reason that it is not, is because there has been too much bickering back and forth between people that know each other too well.  When we stop bitching at each other and start just running a blog we will be able to get more readership because I won't be too embarrassed to advertise it, and we will get a wider variety of opinions.

Make it a great day.

Logipundit

    All right buddy, the gloves are off and this might get a bit ugly.

    Helen Thomas had a showdown with Pres Bush in the spring, when she asked Bush to explain why we actually went to war with Iraq, since all the reasons offered turned out to be rubbish.

    He never answered the question.

    So off the cuff, no further research, straight from the heart, I want you, Butch Porter to explain :

1. Why you think we went to war in Iraq, since all the reasons offered have been shredded by the factual record.

2. Do you still think on August 17, 2006 that the Iraq war was the right thing to do?
(even if you originally thought it was ok, have you learned anything which has now created doubts?)

While the entire world was focused on the events in Lebanon, many Palestinians were killed by the IDF in the Gaza, and the fatalities went vastly unreported.

Read BTSELEM's report :

http://www.btselem.org/english/firearms/20060808_Civilians_killed_in_Gaza.asp

Please read the entire article before you offer any comments.

By Lt. Ryan Cusper

Dear Navy SEAL,
My boyfriend was laid off from his job a few weeks back. Ever since cashing his severance check, all he does is sit around and watch TV while I work to support us both. I know unemployment has undermined his confidence, but I'm not his mother! How do I get him out of the house and looking for work?
--Peeved In Palmyra

Dear Peeved,
Killing silently is a tall order, but a quick look at an anatomy chart will show that the larynx is an easy enough target--providing you can make a stealthy submerged approach, sneak up on your victim, and catch him unaware. Once that's accomplished, grasp his hair as close to the scalp as you're able to and yank his head back while using your Ka-Bar combat knife to make a lateral cut across his throat. Make sure you sever both the carotid artery and jugular vein while piercing the windpipe, and press hard; the larynx is a tough, rubbery piece of tissue.

Dear Navy SEAL,
I am a happily married man with a warm and loving wife who is also my best friend. We've been together for 17 years and couldn't be happier. But lately she says she wants separate beds. I'm reeling! We're barely in our 40s, and in my mind separate sleeping is for seniors. Am I making too much of this? Help!
--Anxious In Andersonville

Dear Anxious,
Destroying a bridge might look easy in the movies, but remember: They're designed to withstand the immense shear-forces of wind and weather. Deploying an underwater M-32 satchel charge at the base of each load-bearing pylon looks like the answer, but it might not even shake a modern riveted steel highway or railroad bridge. Without delving into the complex language of the guerrilla combat engineer, the best advice I can give you is to forgo subtlety in favor of brute force: Put two satchel charges at each X-shaped trestle buck, and this should rob the bridge of any reinforcing strength and cause it to buckle nicely.

Dear Navy SEAL,
After several catastrophically bad relationships, I have finally found the right man. But old habits die hard. After all those cheating jerks, it requires great will for me to trust this absolute prince. I find myself reading his mail, listening to his answering-machine messages, even--God help me--following him around! How do I handle this situation? I don't want to ruin the best thing I have ever had.
--Paranoid In Portsmouth

Dear Paranoid,
The 10mm Colt sidearm might not be an ideal long-distance weapon, and it's certainly no sniper's rifle, but it has the advantages of low weight and quicker target acquisition. You can reliably engage aggressors at ranges of 30 meters and more. Use a two-handed grip and brace the barrel against a tree, or use your dive tanks and rebreather as an improvised bench rest. Don't worry about "stopping power": One of those 10mm slugs opens up to about 70 caliber when it hits, leaving an exit wound you could toss a cat through, and bringing so much energy to a target that a hit in the extremities is often enough to drop Ivan in his tracks.