1
   

Mr. Cheney's Imperial Presidency

 
 
Reply Sun 25 Dec, 2005 10:41 am
Mr. Cheney's Imperial Presidency
The New York Times Editorial
Friday 23 December 2005

George W. Bush has quipped several times during his political career that it would be so much easier to govern in a dictatorship. Apparently he never told his vice president that this was a joke.

Virtually from the time he chose himself to be Mr. Bush's running mate in 2000, Dick Cheney has spearheaded an extraordinary expansion of the powers of the presidency - from writing energy policy behind closed doors with oil executives to abrogating longstanding treaties and using the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to invade Iraq, scrap the Geneva Conventions and spy on American citizens.

It was a chance Mr. Cheney seems to have been dreaming about for decades. Most Americans looked at wrenching events like the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal and the Iran-contra debacle and worried that the presidency had become too powerful, secretive and dismissive. Mr. Cheney looked at the same events and fretted that the presidency was not powerful enough, and too vulnerable to inspection and calls for accountability.

The president "needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conduct of national security policy," Mr. Cheney said this week as he tried to stifle the outcry over a domestic spying program that Mr. Bush authorized after the 9/11 attacks.

Before 9/11, Mr. Cheney was trying to undermine the institutional and legal structure of multilateral foreign policy: he championed the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Moscow in order to build an antimissile shield that doesn't work but makes military contactors rich. Early in his tenure, Mr. Cheney, who quit as chief executive of Halliburton to run with Mr. Bush in 2000, gathered his energy industry cronies at secret meetings in Washington to rewrite energy policy to their specifications. Mr. Cheney offered the usual excuses about the need to get candid advice on important matters, and the courts, sadly, bought it. But the task force was not an exercise in diverse views. Mr. Cheney gathered people who agreed with him, and allowed them to write national policy for an industry in which he had recently amassed a fortune.

The effort to expand presidential power accelerated after 9/11, taking advantage of a national consensus that the president should have additional powers to use judiciously against terrorists.

Mr. Cheney started agitating for an attack on Iraq immediately, pushing the intelligence community to come up with evidence about a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda that never existed. His team was central to writing the legal briefs justifying the abuse and torture of prisoners, the idea that the president can designate people to be "unlawful enemy combatants" and detain them indefinitely, and a secret program allowing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on American citizens without warrants. And when Senator John McCain introduced a measure to reinstate the rule of law at American military prisons, Mr. Cheney not only led the effort to stop the amendment, but also tried to revise it to actually legalize torture at CIA prisons.

There are finally signs that the democratic system is trying to rein in the imperial presidency. Republicans in the Senate and House forced Mr. Bush to back the McCain amendment, and Mr. Cheney's plan to legalize torture by intelligence agents was rebuffed. Congress also agreed to extend the Patriot Act for five weeks rather than doing the administration's bidding and rushing to make it permanent.

On Wednesday, a federal appeals court refused to allow the administration to transfer Jose Padilla, an American citizen who has been held by the military for more than three years on suspicion of plotting terrorist attacks, from military to civilian custody. After winning the same court's approval in September to hold Mr. Padilla as an unlawful combatant, the administration abruptly reversed course in November and charged him with civil crimes unrelated to his arrest. That decision was an obvious attempt to avoid having the Supreme Court review the legality of the detention powers that Mr. Bush gave himself, and the appeals judges refused to go along.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have insisted that the secret eavesdropping program is legal, but The Washington Post reported yesterday that the court created to supervise this sort of activity is not so sure. It said the presiding judge was arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges and that several judges on the court wanted to know why the administration believed eavesdropping on American citizens without warrants was legal when the law specifically requires such warrants.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are tenacious. They still control both houses of Congress and are determined to pack the judiciary with like-minded ideologues. Still, the recent developments are encouraging, especially since the court ruling on Mr. Padilla was written by a staunch conservative considered by President Bush for the Supreme Court.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 636 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
Jack Webbs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2005 12:10 am
I'm sold on Dick Cheney. I don't know how it came about or when but I think it was years ago when he was in charge of Defense or something like that. Tall, thin, real cocky. He had a lot more hair and was always joking around. I sensed that if it were not for all the diplomacy Dick would squeeze the trigger in a second.

I have sort of evolved with my political beliefs. I think the office of the Presiden should have more power; Dick Cheney said so and that is good enough for me. Notice he didn't say he should have more power, just the President.

I just want to evolve as far away from the populace potential as I can get. Republicans once were sort of OK but now they as a whole are not far enough to the right. And by the way I am not particularly religious, I just have always preferred injustice to disorder. Things run better that way.

One thing that would improve the situation today would be eliminating the House of Representatives. Two Senators from each state is all we need. Ever notice how many people there are in the House of Representatives that are not very well educated or rich?

I'd have all members of the Senate graduates of the Ivy League and no lawyers would be admitted. Cool
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2005 12:24 am
Jack Webbs wrote:

One thing that would improve the situation today would be eliminating the House of Representatives. Two Senators from each state is all we need.

Have you considered the idea that a single legislative body may act in a tyranical way just as a single person may? We need two elected in different ways so that the potential for tyranny is neutralized.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2005 12:39 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Jack Webbs wrote:

One thing that would improve the situation today would be eliminating the House of Representatives. Two Senators from each state is all we need.

Have you considered the idea that a single legislative body may act in a tyranical way just as a single person may? We need two elected in different ways so that the potential for tyranny is neutralized.


I'm not too sure what the difference is when all three are controlled by the same party. The Presidency, The House, and The Senate are all Republican controlled. That pretty well diminishes the idea of checks and balances right there doesn't it??

Anon
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2005 11:21 am
Well, if the Republicans would quit winning and stop being the party of choice for the current world conditions, perhaps all 3 branches wouldn't be controlled by them.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2005 11:30 am
Who says they won?


Oh, yeah, Diabold. That's right.
0 Replies
 
Jack Webbs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2005 11:36 am
If all the men were on the same wave length it would but of course the people that decided to invent the three branches of government knew they would not be. There are is enough nonpartisanship to ensure the end result of what they had in mind.

There are people in both major parties that really don't identify with their label stereo-types. I am sure you can think of a few. In spite of Washington and the networks American people are for the most part "to the center." Regardless of whether they vote or not.

But for a vocal minority I doubt Americans would care much one way or the other if we had a Fascist government or a King as long as we remained at the top of the heap with a strong military and continued to prosper as we always have.

Of course the only sure way of knowing this would be with a radical change in the government's structure. I seriously doubt this is going to happen tomorrow or next year. Why change anything if it is working just because a politician or two gets under our skin? Cool
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2005 01:40 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Well, if the Republicans would quit winning and stop being the party of choice for the current world conditions, perhaps all 3 branches wouldn't be controlled by them.


McG,

"The party of choice"?? You mean the party of fear, don't you??

Anon
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2005 01:48 pm
squinney wrote:
Who says they won?


Oh, yeah, Diabold. That's right.


Hey Squinney,

Yea, it's me. Wonders never cease, eh!! I wonder what the Pubs would do if the manufacturer of the voting machines guaranteed Kerry would win, and then he did. Then there is more than enough evidence that the mackines returned a Bush vote when Kerry was selected. Diebold machines have been decertified now in many states. It has also been proven they are easily hacked. Yea, I wonder what the Pubs would be saying now??

Anon
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2005 01:51 pm
Jack Webbs wrote:
But for a vocal minority I doubt Americans would care much one way or the other if we had a Fascist government or a King as long as we remained at the top of the heap with a strong military and continued to prosper as we always have.


49% of the U.S. didn't vote that way!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2005 01:51 pm
Jack Webbs wrote:
But for a vocal minority I doubt Americans would care much one way or the other if we had a Fascist government or a King as long as we remained at the top of the heap with a strong military and continued to prosper as we always have.


49% of the U.S. didn't vote that way!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Jack Webbs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2005 04:03 pm
You may be right.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Mr. Cheney's Imperial Presidency
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/02/2024 at 04:32:41