POL: New terror detainee bill being discussed

[cartman]

Based on what I've read about this bill so far, I've got some real serious reservations about it. It seems to pretty much do away with Habeas Corpus and due process if you are so much as thought to have any terror ties. It is still only being discussed, but it sounds way too open ended, and doesn't really explain what shortcomings exist today that this will address. The only quotes are the general "It's a different world after 9/11" and "our current system doesn't address these scenarios".

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_go_pr_wh/detainee_rights;_ylt=AqYkldIHXLiIeuVur6hg9CsD5gcF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

Bush submits new terror detainee bill

By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Fri Jul 28, 6:53 PM ET

WASHINGTON - U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.
ADVERTISEMENT

A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the
Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.

Administration officials, who declined to comment on the draft, said the proposal was still under discussion and no final decisions had been made.

Senior officials are expected to discuss a final proposal before the
Senate Armed Services Committee next Wednesday.

According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute."

Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda.

"That's the big question ... the definition of who can be detained," said Martin Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University who posted a copy of the bill to a Web blog.

Scott L. Silliman, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, said the broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court — and all the rights that come with it. Administration officials have said they want to establish a secret court to try enemy combatants that factor in realities of the battlefield and would protect classified information.

The administration's proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony.

Senior Republican lawmakers have said they were briefed on the general discussions and have some concerns but are awaiting a final proposal before commenting on specifics.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England are expected to discuss the proposal in an open hearing next Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Military lawyers also are scheduled to testify Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The legislation is the administration's response to a June 29 Supreme Court decision, which concluded the Pentagon could not prosecute military detainees using secret tribunals established soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The court ruled the tribunals were not authorized by law and violated treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which established many international laws for warfare.

The landmark court decision countered long-held assertions by the Bush administration that the president did not need permission from Congress to prosecute "enemy combatants" captured in the war on terror and that al Qaeda members were not subject to Geneva Convention protections because of their unconventional status.

"In a time of ongoing armed conflict, it is neither practicable nor appropriate for enemy combatants like al Qaeda terrorists to be tried like American citizens in federal courts or courts-martial," the proposal states.

The draft proposal contends that an existing law — passed by the Senate last year after exhaustive negotiations between the White House and Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz. — that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment should "fully satisfy" the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

Sen. John W. Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Friday he expects to take up the detainee legislation in September.

[Greyroofoo]

if this gets passed, I'll have to seriously consider moving to Canadia

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

if this gets passed, I'll have to seriously consider moving to Canadia

Is "seriously consider" anything like a rough draft of what you plan to do?

The article does get the blood boiling, but c'mon, it does state it's a draft. Drafts are works in progress by their very basic defintion. Let's be clear here.

[sterlingice]

C'mon, Dutch. A draft of a tax cut or tax raising bill is still a tax cut or a tax raise. The crux of the bill is that there is indefininte detainment for as long until undefined hostilities cease. No one seems to be debating that part- it's the "who is an enemy combatant" part.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Fucking idiots... some people MAY have been swayed by no legal rights for non-citizens (not I, of course), but to cast away rights for CITIZENS? Not to mention that is blatently unconstitutional to allow the bill to be so broad that citizens may lose their constitutionally protected rights.

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't understand the need for this, other than the desire for totalitarian power.

[Glengoyne]

I'm thinking that this simply won't pass the constitutional sniff test, that is, if the writer or some of those whose opinions are being shared aren't simply overstating the ramifications of what was being proposed.

[dawgfan]

Surprised this hasn't been bumped yet, but this bill did in fact pass by a wide margin last Thursday (how your Senator voted).

Here's an editorial from the NY Times regarding this legislation: Rushing Off a Cliff

I'm waiting to hear the administration apologists here explain away this one...

[Joe]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Joe

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ

I'm not seeing that provision in the bill, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it's there and I just overlooked it.

[DaddyTorgo]

i think people are just too afraid of being labeled terror suspects and being tossed away to discuss it. i know i'm still pretty much in shock that it passed.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i know i'm still pretty much in shock that it passed.

I'm getting the impression that Republican strategists did a good job of scaring fellow Republicans and Democrats on this one and will be using "No" votes on this measure in the upcoming mid-term elections as evidence that those legislators are "soft" on terrorists and the war on terror.

Of course, if I'm one of those Senators or Representatives that voted "No", I'll retort that rather than being soft on terrorism, I'm strong on preserving the constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I'm strong on preserving the constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded.

That doesn't seem to win many votes these days, though...

[NoMyths]

America is being lost by its own accord.

Either that or its becoming again what it always was and wanted to be: brutal and borderless.

I suppose my grief is for what America could have become, had her heart ever caught fire for longer than a season.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I'm not seeing that provision in the bill, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it's there and I just overlooked it.

Here it is

Originally Posted by HR6166, Section 6

(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3)
4 of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005
5 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have
6 jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against
7 the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of
8 the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of
9 confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the
10 United States and has been determined by the United
11 States to have been properly detained as an enemy com
12 batant or is awaiting such determination.’’.
13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by
14 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact
15 ment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without ex
16 ception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of
17 this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, trans
18 fer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien
19 detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

[NoMyths]

No court. Meaning exactly what it says.

[nole4sho]

We need to stop this nonsense.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Hmm, have these guys not read Article I of the Constitution:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

There clearly is no state of rebellion, and as far as I know the US has not been invaded... Is there any reason to think the Supreme Court is not going to piss all over this bill?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Is there any reason to think the Supreme Court is not going to piss all over this bill?

One would hope this court hasn't been so politically directed by the recent appointments that they'd abandon the Constitution as readily as the President and Congress have with this bill, but who knows? Plus, who will be the first person to challenge this law in court?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Hmm, have these guys not read Article I of the Constitution:



There clearly is no state of rebellion, and as far as I know the US has not been invaded... Is there any reason to think the Supreme Court is not going to piss all over this bill?

One reason is that Congress has stripped jurisdiction of the courts to hear detainees' arguments against detention. It is unclear who else would have standing to challenge the suspension of habeas corpus other than the person being detained. For that reason, it's possible that the Supreme Court would never be permitted to decide the issue. I'm not sure that is the case (without looking at things further), but my initial review of the issues leads me to that conclusion.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I would imagine, though, that the issue of jurisdiction could be appealed up, with the Supreme Court (if they chose) overruling the attempt by Congress to head them off.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Laws that prohibit judicial review/appeal are valid but only if they in fact are legal under the Constitution. It seems that this one may not be. Certainly, the US Supreme Court can always hear cases to determine if it has jurisdiction in the first instance. I'd imagine we'll see a detainee file a habeas corpus writ soon enough to test it out. Also, if the Dems gain control of Congress and the presidency in 2 years time, they can always change the law.

[Glengoyne]

Wasn't this bill significantly modified from the version discussed above? To say that this passed, at least in the form described by the article above, doesn't exactly seem accurate.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Wasn't this bill significantly modified from the version discussed above? To say that this passed, at least in the form described by the article above, doesn't exactly seem accurate.

Which objectionable provisions were modified? The suspension of Habeas Corpus is still intact; the ambiguous definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" is still intact; the pardon of this administration for any crimes is in there; the acceptence of practices most people would define as "torture" is still there; so what exactly was changed "significantly" about this bill?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Which objectionable provisions were modified? The suspension of Habeas Corpus is still intact; the ambiguous definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" is still intact; the pardon of this administration for any crimes is in there; the acceptence of practices most people would define as "torture" is still there; so what exactly was changed "significantly" about this bill?

Well the torture bit was pretty well revamped as I understand it, so much so that McCain now endorses it. Also the "secret" evidnece provision was eliminated. Those are both pretty significant changes.

The "pardon", prohibition of prosecution clause wasn't going anywhere. That would be a pretty ridiculous thing to even think about removing. That protects the boots on the ground much moreso than the administration. It was non-negotiable.

The definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" could maybe be tightened up. What do you recommend? I'd like to have seen some documented provision allowing a prisoner to request an evaluation of his status. In fact this is one thing I think the high court will revisit. I think that a process, even if it is done by the millitary without the active participation of the accused, would be acceptable to me. Sort of like a grand jury to determine that there are grounds to hold someone.

Suspension of Habeas Corpus for aliens still suspected of ties to terror organizations was pretty much expected, wasn't it? Aliens is the key word.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Suspension of Habeas Corpus for aliens still suspected of ties to terror organizations was pretty much expected, wasn't it? Aliens is the key word.

I just don't get why it's necessary. The only basis I've heard is that the writs would clog civilian courts. C'mon, are you kidding me? I don't believe it, but even if true, is that really a justification for tossing habeas corpus aside. I mean, for god's sake hire 5 judges and rent some office space.

No, the real reason is so the President can detain people forever really, based on what we've have seen previously as someone being in the wrong place during a street sweep. Some may so what. Well, it matters. You can ask the family of the next American soldier who gets captured. The U.S. won't even have any moral ground to stand on to request release or a trial. And I'm just not talking about Iraq or terrorists here, but anywhere in the world and in the many years to come. The U.S. has no moral authority anymore. All for what really?

I have come to the conclusion that as I get older, I will look upon 2001- 2006 as the time when America lost its way.

As it stands now, only the Constitution can protect us. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court (and its current makeup) decides what the Constitution says.

Ah, screw it, I'm just going to pop in my FOF game and not think about it, much like the rest of the American public.

[John Galt]

Article III of the Constitution provides: "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." This means that Congress has the authority to strip appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court except when there is a prescribed Constitutional issue at play (which is very limited). Even in Hamdan, which was otherwise a total loser for the government, the Court agreed that Congress had stripped jurisdiction from future detainee cases. They only reached the merits because a slight majority held the court stripping statute did not apply to cases already in the system.

In other words, the Supreme Court has the authority to decide its jurisdiction over a habeas case, but unless it engages in a blatant power grab, it will rightfully affirm that it has no jurisdiction by order of Congress.

Historically, court stripping has been very rare (I believe it has only occurred once or maybe twice before). However, this Congress has sought to strip the courts jurisdiction on several occassions (bills have been proposed for gay marriage, flag burning, the pledge of allegiance, detainee treatment, and other war on terror areas).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Suspension of Habeas Corpus for aliens still suspected of ties to terror organizations was pretty much expected, wasn't it? Aliens is the key word.

While those of us who aren't aliens may not be concerned about this, it affects a great many people. International students, employees, and all sorts of resident aliens may be imprisoned by the military with no habeas recourse. This is really, really unusual in American history. At the time the Constitution was signed, habeas was regularly granted to aliens and has been throughout American history (with the limited exception of invasion and Civil War). The new law effectively robs a right that has been guaranteed since the Magna Carta to up to 30 million people in America (counting legal and illegal aliens). That's no small number.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Article III of the Constitution provides: "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." This means that Congress has the authority to strip appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court except when there is a prescribed Constitutional issue at play (which is very limited).

That's all well and good with respect to statutory habeas, but constitutional habeas (a more limited claim, but one that should cover the Gitmo detainees) is another story.

Even in Hamdan, which was otherwise a total loser for the government, the Court agreed that Congress had stripped jurisdiction from future detainee cases. They only reached the merits because a slight majority held the court stripping statute did not apply to cases already in the system.

This is not true. They avoided the stripping question by saying that even if it worked it didn't matter because the law wouldn't apply to Hamdan anyway. With respect to stripping jurisdiction, the Court recognized Hamdan's arguments that a) appellate jurisdiction over habeas cases comes from the Constitution rather than Congress and b) that the Government's reading of the DTA would represent an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus. The Court then stated that:

We find it unnecessary to reach either of these arguments. Ordinary principles of statutory construction suffice to rebut the Government’s theory—at least insofar as this case, which was pending at the time the DTA was enacted, is concerned.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

That's all well and good with respect to statutory habeas, but constitutional habeas (a more limited claim, but one that should cover the Gitmo detainees) is another story.



This is not true. They avoided the stripping question by saying that even if it worked it didn't matter because the law wouldn't apply to Hamdan anyway. With respect to stripping jurisdiction, the Court recognized Hamdan's arguments that a) appellate jurisdiction over habeas cases comes from the Constitution rather than Congress and b) that the Government's reading of the DTA would represent an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus. The Court then stated that:

I think what you are saying is true, but not on point. As far as I know, there is no precedent for Constitutional habeas being applied to aliens. If there is, then Congress's act violates the Suspension Clause and the Court can strike it down. However, assuming this court will find Constitutional habeas applies to aliens may be a stretch.

As for Hamdan, you are essentially correct that the Court punted the issue (and I should have said that instead), but I think reading that opinion makes it clear that they wouldn't argue that Congress didn't have the right to deny habeas jurisdiction over people at Gitmo. I could be wrong, but I think this court will not find constitutional habeas applies to aliens in the U.S., much less those in Gitmo.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by John Galt

While those of us who aren't aliens may not be concerned about this, it affects a great many people. International students, employees, and all sorts of resident aliens may be imprisoned by the military with no habeas recourse. This is really, really unusual in American history. At the time the Constitution was signed, habeas was regularly granted to aliens and has been throughout American history (with the limited exception of invasion and Civil War). The new law effectively robs a right that has been guaranteed since the Magna Carta to up to 30 million people in America (counting legal and illegal aliens). That's no small number.

I understand that this does affect a lot of people, including legal aliens. So while, I'm not personally threatened by it, I am concerned that we are allowing for the indefinite detention of people without any form of due process. To say that this hasn't been done before, doesn't quite seem accurate to me though, because we all know that presidents have suspended Habeas Corpus during times of war. I think that this war is different enough that a distinction can cleanly be drawn. This war, especially with regard to detention of persons on US soil, is being fought on by law enforcement. In other words, the home front of this war is a law and order affair, not a millitary one. As such, the laws of law enforcement should apply. As for the Gitmo detainees, those guys are prisoners of war.

This is a tremendous power, being confered to "the Government", and there absolutely should be some means to hold the government accountable for the actions taken under such provisions. How does it go? "With great power, comes great responsibility." There have been terror cases where I do not believe the government has lived up to those responsibilities.

[MrBigglesworth]

You all are discussing laws as if they mean something. We would be torturing people and holding them without trial whether or not this bill passed and whether or not the SC deems it unconstitutional. Bush is The Decider, end of story. I'm starting to have doubts that this administration will leave office in 2009. Sounds crazy, but if I told you 5 years ago that the Congress of the United States would suspend habeas corpus and legalize torture while the executive wiretapped Americans at will and operated secret torture prisons, you'd think I was crazy. Where does it end? What is the limit that this groups is willing to go to?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I understand that this does affect a lot of people, including legal aliens. So while, I'm not personally threatened by it, I am concerned that we are allowing for the indefinite detention of people without any form of due process.

Actually, it's worse than that - thanks to the broad definition of "enemy combatants" even U.S. citizens can be detained and forced to defend themselves before military tribunals and without the same constitutional protections afforded under criminal trials.

This is a tremendous power, being confered to "the Government", and there absolutely should be some means to hold the government accountable for the actions taken under such provisions. How does it go? "With great power, comes great responsibility." There have been terror cases where I do not believe the government has lived up to those responsibilities.

I agree completely - it is the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus that bothers me the most. Without the threat that their actions can be reviewed by an independent judiciary, where's the motivation for those in power to keep from targeting political enemies?

While I have concerns over how this bill defines what constitutes torture and what are acceptable interrogation techniques and the admissibility of certain coerced testimony (and I definitely have concerns), my bigger issue with this bill is the amount of power granted to the President and the Department of Defense in determining who is an enemy and the very limited legal oversight of their actions.

[dawgfan]

Dola - here's an article that explains a lot of my concerns:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...nion-rightrail

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Actually, it's worse than that - thanks to the broad definition of "enemy combatants" even U.S. citizens can be detained and forced to defend themselves before military tribunals and without the same constitutional protections afforded under criminal trials.


I agree completely - it is the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus that bothers me the most. Without the threat that their actions can be reviewed by an independent judiciary, where's the motivation for those in power to keep from targeting political enemies?

While I have concerns over how this bill defines what constitutes torture and what are acceptable interrogation techniques and the admissibility of certain coerced testimony (and I definitely have concerns), my bigger issue with this bill is the amount of power granted to the President and the Department of Defense in determining who is an enemy and the very limited legal oversight of their actions.

I was under the impression that "alien" was part of the definition of "enemy combatant".

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I was under the impression that "alien" was part of the definition of "enemy combatant".

Nope:

(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109jtkrk1::

[Vinatieri for Prez]

dawgfan is correct. Enemy combatants include U.S. citizens. Now, habeaus corpus is not suspended for citizens as it is for aliens, but as dawgfan points out, citizens would still be subject to the military tribunals under the law (along with the secret/coerced evidence admissibility among many other things). So, yes U.S. citizen's rights have been severely cut. And yes, it also means citizens will be subject quasi-torture too under the law. It's really a great law, don't you think?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Well the torture bit was pretty well revamped as I understand it, so much so that McCain now endorses it. Also the "secret" evidnece provision was eliminated. Those are both pretty significant changes.

At the end of the day, however, they aren't.

The "torture bit" was revamped in that significant attempts were made to delineate, as far as possible, what activities were OK and what weren't. The "litmus test" for these torture activities seems to be whether or not they cause lasting damage. Therefore, according to this definition, simulated drowning is not torture. You can either agree with this assessment or not agree with it. I personally don't agree. Simulated drowning is torture and is inhumane.

The "secret evidence" provision was, in fact, removed, yes. However, the language of the bill still allows the DoD (or whomever) to redact any part of the evidence they want so long as the "essence" of the evidence's message is still there. Again, it's something that sounds good, but really isn't.

[Buccaneer]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/...amo/index.html

You know, if the stupid media and its obsession with "breaking" stories before they happened would cease, maybe they would have gone ahead and starting to close the damn thing. But noooo, the media love the power to affect events, whether real or imagined.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yep, it's all the media's fault. There is no doubt that the existence and continuation of the Guatanomo "situation" is squarely their fault. There is no doubt about that.

Bush, when asked last week why he had the Guatanomo detention facility set up, stated "the media, there is no doubt that once the media got involved covering the war, we had to open up Guatanomo."

[Buccaneer]

So why did they come out with this story today?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Because they are reporting "news." The better question would be why would the administration call of a meeting just because it was reported on.

[st.cronin]

I'm still a big fan of this administration, despite all its flaws and mistakes. Almost all of the characterizations its critics routinely make strike me as being completely false.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/...amo/index.html

You know, if the stupid media and its obsession with "breaking" stories before they happened would cease, maybe they would have gone ahead and starting to close the damn thing. But noooo, the media love the power to affect events, whether real or imagined.

There is a lot wrong with the media, but I don't understand this critique. They shouldn't have reported that the government was thinking about shutting it down? That's not newsworthy? They should only report things that have happened? Does that mean no more economic forecasts, no more NFL trade speculation, no more discussing a possible Supreme Court ruling before it's made?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm still a big fan of this administration, despite all its flaws and mistakes. Almost all of the characterizations its critics routinely make strike me as being completely false.

Ah, so you are one of the 30%.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm still a big fan of this administration, despite all its flaws and mistakes. Almost all of the characterizations its critics routinely make strike me as being completely false.

Would you mind detailing some of the successes that this administration has had in making us a stronger, safer nation? I know the bad has been dominating the headlines, but if there is a compelling case that they're doing a great job, I would seriously listen to it.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Would you mind detailing some of the successes that this administration has had in making us a stronger, safer nation? I know the bad has been dominating the headlines, but if there is a compelling case that they're doing a great job, I would seriously listen to it.

Obviously there have not been a lot of great successes, and whatever the reasons for that, this administration ultimately owns their own failures. But what I admire about Bush is that he seems to think about the broad questions of our time in the right way: Should we be reacting to world events, or trying to shape the world? What should our immigration policy look like? How should our country go about retaining its primacy? I don't agree with all the answers Bush comes up with, but I do admire the way he thinks about these questions.

The main criticisms that get fired at him seem to be totally without merit, first of all that he's not a smart man, and second that he's a power-mad autocrat.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The main criticisms that get fired at him seem to be totally without merit, first of all that he's not a smart man, and second that he's a power-mad autocrat.

oh I think that's pretty much been proven. daddy's oil money and
power-connections can take you a long way.

[JPhillips]

I wouldn't say he's a power mad autocrat, but it's undeniable that this admin has tried to expand executive authority in unprecedented ways. Personally I don't want the President to have as much concentrated power as the Bush folks do.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Obviously there have not been a lot of great successes, and whatever the reasons for that, this administration ultimately owns their own failures. But what I admire about Bush is that he seems to think about the broad questions of our time in the right way: Should we be reacting to world events, or trying to shape the world? What should our immigration policy look like? How should our country go about retaining its primacy? I don't agree with all the answers Bush comes up with, but I do admire the way he thinks about these questions.

The main criticisms that get fired at him seem to be totally without merit, first of all that he's not a smart man, and second that he's a power-mad autocrat.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I suppose what I don't understand, though, is that faced with clear evidence that the Bush Administration's thinking and acting about those problems hasn't solved any of them, why would one continue to believe that those ways of thinking and acting about those problems would be effective?

I don't tend to buy into those criticisms about the President (although he is no Abraham Lincoln). Rather, I look at the effect his policies and behavior are having, and I look at the method and ideology behind his and his supporters' positions, and it becomes clear that our country is in severe trouble if we pursue his course of thinking much longer.