Friday, June 02, 2006

A Couple of Questions

The Bush administration believes in the power of the unitary executive, that the President stands "above all equals." The President has claimed broad, "extra-constitutional powers" in order to better "protect" Americans. Under these auspices, the executive branch has claimed the powers to "eavesdrop" on American citizens without a warrant. To collect all phone records, bank records, email records, library records of anybody they deem a "threat." Additionally, the President has claimed the authority to effectively operate outside of the law via "signing statements" that he believes allow him to conduct the "war on terror" outside of any binding Congressional oversight. In other words, if he views a law as an impediment, he can circumvent that law as the "Commander In Chief." Additionally, anyone deemed a "terror threat," regardless of their citizenship, can be held indefinitely, without charge or access to an attorney for an indefinate period.

Where does this end?

I don't mean that in a "slippery slope" kind of way. I mean, at what point is it no longer necessary for the President of the United States, any president from any political party, to exercise extra-constitutional authority?

Will there be a time when the officially undeclared "war on terror" against an undefined enemy (an enemy that operates outside of international borders) comes to an end? Will the President call a press conference and appear by the White House Rose Garden with his foot triumphantly on the chest of the dead body of the last terrorist and declare the end of the threat to all Americans? Will he/she then forfeit the power the executive branch has seized beyond the boundaries of the Constitution, power that has been used under the veil of secrecy and outside of any discernable oversight?

Will there ever be an end to the War on Terror?

Does this genie go back in the bottle?

Or did 9/11 really "change everything?"

Have the terrorists already won?




note: The second to last sentence of the first paragraph was added in an edit shortly after the initial posting.

13 Comments:

At 6/02/2006 8:11 PM, Blogger not_over_it said...

No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.

 
At 6/02/2006 8:15 PM, Blogger vesti said...

You know, this post just wasn't up to the consistently extraordinary high standard I've come to expect from the Bentz Blog.

Let's go bojangles, dance me up a quality post.

 
At 6/03/2006 7:25 AM, Blogger Carl said...

Bentz,

It will end when Bush declares martial law on January 19, 2009.

It will, of course, not end in a good way.

 
At 6/03/2006 7:27 AM, Blogger Carl said...

Sharight, Vesti, like YOUR posts have all been stellar or do I *have* to remind you of the cringe-worthy Soprano posts?

 
At 6/03/2006 9:40 PM, Blogger Bentz said...

Well, they can't all be linked by Crooks & Liars...


...and I didn't think the post was that bad. Not necessarily groundbreaking but worthy of some thought....

 
At 6/04/2006 6:02 PM, Blogger vesti said...

(was joking)

 
At 6/04/2006 9:04 PM, Blogger Bentz said...

(knows)


heh.

 
At 6/05/2006 6:40 AM, Blogger vesti said...

My favorite aspect of your blog so far is "full disclosure" ... you know, where you note any edits/changes you made from the original posting. Im thinking about adopting this practice for the vestiblog ... but going one step further. Here's a sample:

"So, how about those wacky Chinese? (I just farted) They own, like, half of America's debt! (Damn, that really smells. Good thing you aren't here.) What if China BOUGHT Wal-Mart? (I am now experiencing feelings of self-doubt about my comic abilities, and may try a line of blow to enhance my skills.) And what about McDonald's? Who are the ad wizards behind THIS corporation? (I just called an escort service ... perhaps she can make the pain go away - if just for a few moments.)

 
At 6/05/2006 6:08 PM, Anonymous counter-coulter said...

Is it the cold, spring water there or what???

Gay marriage debate begins

From the article:

It's the latest effort to pass the “Marriage Protection Amendment” from Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo. The same measure in 2004 failed to clear a procedural hurdle necessary to go to a vote.

 
At 6/05/2006 6:52 PM, Blogger Bentz said...

Glad you're enjoying that, Vesti. Just trying to kick off my blogging career with honesty and integrity. Otherwise people won't respect my photoshopped bunny ears on war movie characters or my commentary on the homoerotic prayer sessions of Kirk Cameron.

CC - that was actually expected. Allard is catering to the Focus on the Family crowd (based in Colo. Springs) and carrying Rove's water by introducing the Gay Marriage shit in a battleground state during an election year. Typical Republican m.o. - redirect the public ire over stagnant wages, huge deficits, increasing interest rates, mortgage foreclosures, lack of health care, an overextended military, increading casualties and failure to capture Bin Laden toward immigrants and homosexuals. Allard is being a good foot soldier.

 
At 6/06/2006 10:08 AM, Blogger Carl said...

Bentz said...
Glad you're enjoying that, Vesti. Just trying to kick off my blogging career with honesty and integrity. Otherwise people won't respect my photoshopped bunny ears on war movie characters or my commentary on the homoerotic prayer sessions of Kirk Cameron.


Ooooooh, burrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrn....

 
At 7/20/2006 3:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Super color scheme, I like it! Good job. Go on.
»

 
At 7/22/2006 4:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find some information here.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home