Comments (33)

Punchy wrote on July 20, 2007 11:38 AM:

Please tell me executive orders can be challenged in court. Otherwise, what's the difference between an executive order and the President just making up laws in place of the Legislative branch? What is the check on this kind of nonsense?

Anonymous wrote on July 20, 2007 11:54 AM:

Due process? DUE PROCESS!!! These people still don't get it. Maybe when they open the gas chambers it will become clear.

We have entered a new period of lawlessness. There is a new sheriff in town, and he don't read no constitution to know what the law is. He is the law.

TheraP wrote on July 20, 2007 11:58 AM:

I think you've put your finger on the problem, Punchy.

Unfortunately, it appears to me that what's happening now are the final puzzle pieces being put together into something pretty airtight. So that pretty soon the oligarchs will be spending our money to keep us penned up!

Paranoid yet? wrote on July 20, 2007 12:36 PM:

word is "screw"

Enough said.

VultureTX wrote on July 20, 2007 12:42 PM:

So Punchy, are you truly ignorant of the US govt.?

Yes all EOs can be challenged in the courts, even the secret ones. The Caveat is that a person or group affected by the EO must be part of the judicial challenge. And congress can specifically create a law that nullifies any EO by statute.

As for the BLANK tin foil hat wearer- What do you say in Jan 2009 and GWB has retired to Texas? As for lawlessness, wow you don't even know the meaning of the word.

TharaP- yep you are oh so confined SARCASM off. Hate to break it to you, but you are at most 4 plane flights away from going to Cuba any time you want to. To bad the Cubans can't say the same.

/Help Help I am being repressed! But not really but since you have no clue as to what real suppression of freedom is, the above posters will believe it.

Anonymous wrote on July 20, 2007 12:57 PM:

Vulture-Like your screen name by the way.

In 1/09, Bush may very well leave office, but the legacy his fascist dictatorship legacy will survive and grow. It is too stupid to be even a competent dictator, he will be replaced.

Why do you hate the Constitution? Seriously, what is it with you people an contempt for this system?

Anonymous wrote on July 20, 2007 12:58 PM:

Vulture-Like your screen name by the way.

In 1/09, Bush may very well leave office, but the legacy his fascist dictatorship will survive and grow. He is too stupid to be even a competent dictator so he will be replaced.

Why do you hate the Constitution? Seriously, what is it with you people an contempt for this system?

JEP wrote on July 20, 2007 1:05 PM:

Wonder if Bush will call the inevitable articles of impeachment "a GD piece of paper...?"

Comparing this impeachment to Clinton's is a cosmic joke. Clinton was the victim of POLITICAL impeachment; Bush is a high-crimes addict.

If Democrats had the chutzpah now that Republicans did then, this would already be over. They took a non-issue, and with a ravenously Clinton-deranged media at heel, brought impeachment and sexually explicit testimonby to the living rooms of America.

Just the fact that impeachment could be pursued for such a profane purpose as it was against Clinton, should give the Dems (and any R's who want a future in politics) all the justification in the world to proceed.

Sex, lies and cigars vs. treason, lies and WMD?

No comparison. There should be no impediment to impeachment, other than the sorry lack of will on the part of Democratic lawmakers.

JEP wrote on July 20, 2007 1:08 PM:

"As for lawlessness, wow you don't even know the meaning of the word."

Please, illumnate us, oh arrogant one...

Troll Patrol wrote on July 20, 2007 1:26 PM:

My, my.... such anger @ 12:42 ... over a few short comments.

Click below, poor soul - for some words of wisdom.

johnnydoughey wrote on July 20, 2007 1:28 PM:

Bush will probably be able to use this just as much for propaganda purposes as financial. Any account coming from the "EVIL ONES" such as Iran or Syria, can be flagged by the administration as more proof that those countries support the terrorists... even if they are just relatives helping out those still in Iraq.
Of course, I doubt we will ever see any accounts from the Saudis flagged.

malcontent wrote on July 20, 2007 1:37 PM:

Given how this administration "extended" the meaning of the AUMF what is to stop them from applying this EO wherever the hell they want it to apply?

I wouldn't count on constitutional protections with their track record there either.

Samsara wrote on July 20, 2007 1:51 PM:

OK, let me see if I am following this. Charities can't send the Sunnis in Iraq blankets, but Bush is arming them in the fight against al-queda.

Have the Sunni militias we are now arming in Anbar taken part in the killing of US soldiers?

Are we keeping track of the weapons we are handing out so we can collect them before we leave?

Why are we arming both sides in a civil war?

This is progress?

Anna S. wrote on July 20, 2007 1:53 PM:

Due process went the way of habeas corpus when the first Patriot Act authorized warrantless searches and surveillance without need to show "probable cause". This one's just another straw on the foundering camel.

paul wrote on July 20, 2007 2:01 PM:

Once your assets have been frozen, of course, good luck getting a lawyer to handle your case...

VultureTX wrote on July 20, 2007 3:07 PM:

well considering NONAME statements, I ask why does he hate America. It's obvious he has not even bothered to study its history. I can, off the top of my head, think of two US Presidents whose wartime actions were an order of magnitude beyond GWB in suppressing constitutional freedoms and deaths of American soldiers. Both are taught to children as examples of great leaders.

And griping about an incompetent dictator while claiming that lawlessness reigns just shows incoherency at best.

BTW JEP there were 23 reasons to go to war. Nigerian Uranium was just one of them.

Oh and Troll Patrol get a clue, a life, and a real job please. You claim anger/assault/oppression and don't even know what it means to have your freedoms suppressed. Hint: I know many survivors of communist rule who would laugh at your BS.

Now quickly TrollPatrol - get all demonstrative and show me up by using that liberal arts English degree to pithily drub all who oppose you and yours. 'Cause at the end of the term, GWB and Cheney walk away. And all you can do is attack "troll" on the Net who don't side with you. SAD!

gilnetter wrote on July 20, 2007 3:35 PM:

Hi all, I'm wondering about one thing. Is it possible for these criminals Bush, Cheney, et al) to be brought to justice after they leave office in '09? This is assuming that they do, in fact, leave and don't just declare themselves the permanent goverment.

Steve5117 wrote on July 20, 2007 3:45 PM:

VultureTX is truely a trollish asshole. His claims to be able to think are absurd. He says he knows something but fails to say what it is he knows. What he really knows is nothing.

Remember muckrakers, the more the trolls troll, the more fear they must be feeling for the inevitable!

TheraP wrote on July 20, 2007 3:59 PM:

Agreed, Steve5117.

Presence of a troll, and such ludicrous thinking at that, is ample evidence that the ship is sinking for sure, the topic is another hole in the hull, and there are few on the ship with clear heads and a cool hand at the tiller.

Due process. That's the hot spot.

Due process.

Anonymous wrote on July 20, 2007 4:02 PM:

Vulture-Enough about me. What enquiring minds want to know is why is it you hate the Constitution?

My theory about the emerging dictatorship and its pathetic little followers, is that those who support it have real self esteem issues. They can’t trust democratic government and prefer simply to trust in the paternalistic, authoritarian government who will make all those complicated decisions for them. The hypermasculine, violent, aspects help to pacify that nasty achy feeling that haunts the believers from deep inside. Nothing breaks a weak moment better than an unprovoked invasion with lots of maimed, dismembered, disemboweled freedom-hating civilians.

The Bid Daddy government will also slug those nasty librls who bleed all over the place for hungry babies and sick old people. What’s the point in government if it doesn’t let the weak be put in their place by strong angry men?

Ani wrote on July 20, 2007 4:08 PM:

That's right JEP!
Actually it might be more like:
Sex, lies and cigars vs. oil, death and yellowcake.

Joseph Conrad wrote on July 20, 2007 4:19 PM:

KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL, AMERICA! BUSHCO. IS STEALING YOUR LUNCH, BILL OF RIGHTS, TAX DOLLARS & EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S NOT HIS & CHENEY'S...

America is in dire straights and Americans don't even know it! No more Habaeus Corpus, no more Free Speech and no more Protection From Illegal Search & Seizure. One by one, the Bill of Rights is going down the tubes as Americans wring their hands. What a said Nation...

VultureTX wrote on July 20, 2007 4:22 PM:

fine this is one of those group thought delusional places. quick oppose the outsider for he may show you to be the fools that you are.

Inevitable, yes GWB and Cheney retiring at the end of their term was inevitable. Especially after Pelosi was smart enough to take it off the table.

But as for being scared, You progressives have been yelling ever since the 2000 election and what "the sky is still falling" you say. and 2002 and 2004 and 2006 , see a pattern yet?

Seriously in January 2009 what will you have accomplished, except proving that you don't have a clue as to reality.

BTW I did notice that no one could counter that two other presidents have far exceeded GWB in terms of suppression of the US constitution which is why I wonder why NONAME claims I hate it. At least I know its history and no one here evidently does. 'Cause then you would look foolish in your claims. No problem historians already know.

/I now leave you to your groupthink and that happy place you go where you are right and all who don't kiss your ass are wrong. until Jan 2009 at least.

Troll Patrol wrote on July 20, 2007 4:28 PM:

Bye...

Aaron G. Stock wrote on July 20, 2007 6:26 PM:

"BTW I did notice that no one could counter that two other presidents have far exceeded GWB in terms of suppression of the US constitution which is why I wonder why NONAME claims I hate it."

Apparently you think that the people on here are a bunch of hoop-jumpers, too.

Crack that whip, VultureTX! Hyah!

Carol lam wrote on July 20, 2007 8:53 PM:

The Pathocrats have been doing this for a long time. Cat Stevens was "detained" with his young daughter for contributing to legitimate Muslim charities. They want the poor in the USA and Iraq to die in the streets.

Please write to thank the 70 congresspersons who signed this and to your rep if they did not sign.

Thank you for being one of the 70 courageous Congresspersons to truly represent the will of the American people by signing "no cash without troop withdrawal"bill.

The Executive Branch must be defunded IMMEDIATELY, and all their assets frozen.

Cheney needs to be impeached and removed from office asap. Please sign Congressman Kucinich's bill.

Only 70 congressmen? Where are the rest and what do they think about this?

There seems to be a lot of Ds not listed. Where the hell are they?

Thank you for your long-time stand with the anti-war movement which now includes 70% (or more of the American people.)

PAPER NOT VAPOR BALLOTS!!!
IMPEACH FOR PEACE

70 Congressmen tell Bush no cash without troop withdrawal
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/70_Congressmen_tell_Bush_no_cash_0719.html

MCD wrote on July 21, 2007 2:33 AM:

I think the whole reason behind this is so he can invade Iran without first getting permission from Congress.

Uncle_Meat wrote on July 21, 2007 3:45 AM:

First and last time i'll do it, promise.

sc: bell

For whom the bell tolls...

Just more of the same, trying to escape the inevitable moment of retribution.

Any rule or law, signing statement or executive order that undermines the constitution becomes itself unconstitutional.

JEP wrote on July 21, 2007 9:45 AM:

"BTW JEP there were 23 reasons to go to war."

and so far, well over 3000 (now almost 4,000) reasons NOT TO go to war!

...care to weigh the balance from that perspective?

But, I would guess, like the war profiteers, vultures depend on death for their sustenance...

code-word "weight", how appropriate.

JEP wrote on July 21, 2007 9:54 AM:

"You progressives have been yelling ever since the 2000 election and what "the sky is still falling" you say."

Ask any Iraqi; is the sky still falling?

Remember shock and awe?

THE SKY IS FALLING! It isn't just a panic attack, it is a realistic assesment. And it wasn't just the lies and the lousy "war", our constitutional sky is falling Especially the part about separation of powers.

We need to keep yelling, and start yelling even louder.

Here's a repost of an earlier comment, but it's been tweaked a bit; this is my way of "yelling"...

Senatorial Threatened Species?

Do you suppose there are ten Republican senators who know if they do not support impeachment, they will not get re-elected? And how many more of them already realize their support of Bush's "war" will cost them their chair?

Any Senator still supporting Bush's "war" will become a very threatened species when The People get to vote again. And I would suggest, if you look at the signs, a lot of Senators have already realized it, and are still weighing their bully, Bush era Republican pride against their popular electability.

The longer they take to weigh the obvious and inevitable conclusion against that vain error, the more likely they will bear the weight of Bush's burden at election time.

As for riots in the streets, and all our tinfoil-hats a-tingling lately, I believe, by now, we should have civilized ourselves beyond the need for mob response. And we have so little influence on the timelines of this "war", insurrection would never solve that problem.

To be brutally honest, I think we are trapped in the profiteer's calendar, when it comes to the timelines we can demand, and only massive oil concessions from the Iraqis will satiate them.

And, except that we will numbly consume it all, we have no influence over that final oil contract, besides our opinions from afar. It will take another major U.S. election to weigh the balance fully against these lawless rogues, and ironically, that gives them their one way out, and I hope to God they do not even ponder creating any delays to that glorious day, because I do not want to die in the streets, fighting a Revolution my ancestors already won.

Those election dates are the only way we can change this mess, and denying us for any reason is tantamount to a declaration of dictatorship.

But I expect that they will take their multi-trillion-dollar redistribution-of-wealth booty off to The Bahamas or Dubai and slobber over it happily. They already got what they wanted, we just have to hope it was enough.

I do hold out hope that some of their more egregious misdeeds (let me count the ways) will be put under the spotlight of unrestricted justice, soon after their Grand Protector, (that High Crimes addict,) has lost his pardon powers, which he fully intends to profane. Andy work we do before then should be purely for the purpose of thorough investigation. And no doubt, a Cheney Impeachment would provide the perfect privilege-free environment for it.

But we must wait until the next president to actually lay charges against the criminals, because by convicting them before Bush is gone, we give them a get-out-of-jail-free card. However, we can use this time, and the Democratic Party gavel, to gather in "The Truth" that has not been deleted or destoryed.

One last note; if something should happen that threatens those election deadlines we have come to trust, then I will rejoin you all in the streets, and we can start the civilized thing up again, immediately after they give us our elections back.

TheraP wrote on July 21, 2007 10:50 AM:

If anyone reading this thread has not read the thread where JEP posted yesterday, I highly recommend it. It is practically essential reading. Just click on "It's my Legal System" above - in the TPM Muckracker header. It is long. But for my money it's one of the best threads I've ever had the privilege to read and be part of.

On another note, the more I think about this presidential edict (subject of this thread), the more upset I feel. It goes back to Anna's comment above, where she points out that we are still operating "outside the Geneva conventions." And I am thinking not just of torture here but simply of interrogation. It's my understanding that Geneva provides for holding prisoners, feeding them, clothing them, providing medical care, allowing the Red Cross to visit and so on. But that Geneva specifically rules out interrogations - interrogations of the type this presidential edict specifically addresses.

It's not enough not to torture. It is simply wrong to seize someone, provide them no recourse to question their being held, and then proceed to subject them to psychological and physical stress of a sort none of us would call humane. The standard should start with "humane" treatment, not simply "no torture" but then "anything goes in the service of interrogation."

If I am not mistaken this presidential edict addresses "how to interrogate" and "what we advertise as our interrogation policy" - rather than starting with rights of human beings and treating persons as we would want ourselves, if imprisoned, to be treated.

To me this has got to be the bottom line: How would we expect ourselves to be treated? Because the way things are going, under bush, with one edict following another, ANY ONE OF US might ultimately be seized, deemed an enemy combatant, and - PRESTO!- we're hidden in this underground maze, where no one can help us (because any "help" is deemed unlawful), and we have entered a living hell - with no promise we will ever get out of it.

I see things a bit differently than JEP has presented them. Because I see the CONSTITUTIONAL
CRISIS as primary - and I see that as inherent in a NATIONAL IDENTITY CRISIS. Who we are as a people seems to be in question here. Are we a greedy, authoritarian lot, devoid of empathy for the rest of humanity (no matter how depraved or angry), ready to assert our will and trample any who question our authority or assert different views? Or are we a people who recognize our common humanity within a world where all people have rights, all deserve a share of the world's resources, and even those who seek to harm us are given due process and human treatment as a right?

To me - there is really no difference between how we solve our "national identity crisis" and "what we do about Iraq." The same principles, the same values, should underlie our thinking and our actions. We simply cannot ascribe to ourselves more rights than we are willing to cede to others.

Thus, I agree with JEP. THE SKY IS FALLING! But I urge, I plead, that all of us go back to the most basic values we hold dear - for ourselves and others - and rebuild if necessary - our national identity - not into something where we look like gorillas beating our chests - but into something more compassionate, more selfless. That may be a tall order - but it seems to me that without it, we are doomed.

All empires have fallen. And we are not immune. And they fall due to pride, due to arrogance. Due to imposing their will on others. Due to greed. After all, we fought a revolutionary war ourselves - against an empire. And now we have become, at least in the eyes of most of the world, and I know I am preaching to the choir here, we have become what the Founders fought against.

IT'S AN EMERGENCY! And we all need to search our souls.

My apology for the long post.

TheraP wrote on July 21, 2007 10:54 AM:

My apology. There are so many important threads from Friday. I thought I was commenting in the one related to "torture etc."

Forgive me for being a bit off topic. But honestly it hard to separate topics when we're in the middle of a national identity/constitutional crisis.

judelle wrote on July 23, 2007 11:02 AM:

Some of you mentioned 1-09 and Bush out of office. Try this on for size.. Bush will still be President. Because he will make some law and sign some order and get the Supreme Court to back him up... stating that elections will have to be suspended because of the threat of terror on US soil ( yes there will be some high level (made up) terror threat). And for the purpose of homeland security the government would have to have continuity and therefore Bush and Cheney would need to remain in their office until such time as The Executive Branch deems the threat is weakened to a point that they feel comfortable holding elections..

Call me paranoid, call me a conspiracy theorist... but considering what has happened over the past 6+ years... Doesn’t seem so far fetched does it??????