the Bush power grab

[drewkitty]

I've put together a list of sources and links for the power grab perpetuated by the Executive Branch in the last twenty years or so. While the junior and elder Bush did a lot of this, some was done under Clinton as well.

Remember that one boils a frog by cooking it slowly.

I've also learned -- the hard way -- my lesson about discussions with conservatives. When I put in the time and energy to provide citations, they are dismissed out of hand. When I don't, I am accused of making up facts.

It's far easier to simply not argue with them at all. I choose to invest my energy where it is most productive. Conservatives have convincingly persuaded me that talking to them is like wrestling with pigs -- one only gets dirty, and the pig enjoys it.

So from now on, I simply treat conservatives as dangerously deluded at best and actively psychotic and opposed to my existence at worst. No point to talking politics with them.



>> Bush has laid all of the legalistic (note that I did *not* say legal) groundwork to do exactly that, stay in office past 2008.

Expansion of FEMA emergency powers -- many coming after Hurricane Katrina, a double slap in the face. "Signing statements" in which the President instructs executive agencies to ignore acts of Congress (i.e. break the law). Executive orders on a wide plethora of subjects once reserved to legislation, some involving extrajudicial confiscation of property. A quiet and chilling expansion of Federal powers to investigate, detain, arrest and hold American citizens under "emergency" conditions. Wholesale abandonment of "posse comitatus."

The upshot is that if a national emergency were to take place immediately before or during a Presidential election, all of the legal and operational frameworks are in place to "temporarily" assume control of the United States. About as effectively as FEMA took control of New Orleans post-Katrina. Add "bird flu" and stir vigorously.

Citations:

"FEMA emergency powers":

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency
* http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_Emergency_Management_Agency
* http://sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon6.html (pre-Bush introduction)
* http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/27/1027497418339.html (2002)
* http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/06/bush_cites_authority_to_bypass_fema_law/
* http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7986.shtml

* http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050911_federal_failure.htm
* http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/samples7.html

"Signing statements":

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement_%28United_States%29
* http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php
* http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
* http://www.slate.com/id/2134919/
* http://www.abanet.org/media/docs/signstatereport.pdf
* http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

"Executive Orders"

* http://www.iahf.com/bonfire1.html (an OK general explanation)

* http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6377 ("The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US led war.")

* http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070802-1.html (asset seizure in USA)
* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/26/AR2006062601304.html (order to upgrade EAS)
* http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/executive/index.html
* http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-3385.pdf
(a sample order)
* http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13382.htm (an EO targeted against distributors of WMD precursors)

"new powers against American citizens" (loss of habeus corpus)

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
* http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/
* http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/habeuscorpus.htm
* http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006
* http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0928-20.htm
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4329839.stm (UK history)
* http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/restorehabeas/default.asp

"Posse comitatus"

* http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm (watering down between 1980 and 2000)
* http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/Factcards/PosseComitatus.html
* http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/posse/posse.htm (many useful links)
* http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/26/bush.military/ 'Bush eyes bigger military role in disasters'

* http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Posse_Comitatus_Act
* http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
* http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/18/211033/23

Comments

[ihuitl.livejournal.com]

As I said before, if we have a completed election in 2008, you owe me dinner.

That Bet?

[zakueins.livejournal.com]

I'll take it, too.

Re: That Bet?

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

The bet is not open to you. Akhetnu and I have been discussing this for many years.

Re: That Bet?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Wait, you think that Bush is going to cancel the 2008 elections ... based on no evidence ... and you're calling conservatives "dangerously deluded at best" ... ?

Uh-huh.

Re: That Bet?

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Oh, look, Exhibit A pops up for a look see.

Re: That Bet?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I'm not the one arguing, on zero evidence, that Bush is going to attempt an obviously-doomed coup-from-above.

Have you, from the loftiness of your Deep Liberal Wisdom, ever bothered to consider that if Bush tried to cancel the 2008 elections and remain in power, he would not only arouse the ire of the Democrats but also of virtually all the Independents and most of the Republicans? Have you bothered to consider that the Armed Forces swear their loyalty to the Constitution rather than the President, and that many generals would consider it their duty to block the coup and deliver the (former) President over to the civil courts? (Note that after Inauguration Day 2009, it would no longer be legally necessary to impeach Bush, as he would de jure no longer be President no matter what noises he uttered from a podium).

Has it occurred to you that Bush, even if he's as malevolent as you imagine, could think this through just as I did right now?

Re: That Bet?

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

You seem woefully ignorant of history.

It is amazing to realize that Bush is in fact stupider than you are. That is not a complement to you.

Bush's actions in dealing with Hurricane Katrina alone demonstrate that he is indeed stupid enough, especially when swayed by evil advice, to think that the American people love him and trust him.

Bush is becoming the most hated President in history. He doesn't seem to know it.

I am not confident in any way that Bush knows his own limits, or has any.

I don't disagree with your outcome prediction. But even the attempt would be hideously damaging to American democracy.

Something else conservatives clearly don't care about.

Re: That Bet?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

You seem woefully ignorant of history.

I'm quite aware of history, which is why I know that it is very unlikely that Bush would attempt a coup from above. America has no tradition of submitting to successful coups, a tradition that could only be broken by someone popular and victorious (a "Marius" -- look up the reference if you don't know what I'm talking about).

It is amazing to realize that Bush is in fact stupider than you are.

LOL!!!

You assert that Bush is plotting a coup, then chide him for his stupidity in so attempting!

Well, I think you're an idiot for planning to rob that bank. Don't you know that bank robbers almost never get away with it?

"No," you cry, "I'm not planning to rob a bank."

Ah, but I have asserted that you are, and thus by your logic it is now presumed that you are ...

Re: That Bet?

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

>> I'm quite aware of history, which is why I know that it is very unlikely that Bush would attempt a coup from above.

Despite the fact that it's happened several times in American history? Go read your Civil War history again a few more times, with particular attention to the relationship between Lincoln and the Supreme Court. You might also try reading about FDR, but I can't expect a psuedo-conservative to be objective about our first truly socialist president.

>> America has no tradition of submitting to successful coups, a tradition that could only be broken by someone popular and victorious (a "Marius" -- look up the reference if you don't know what I'm talking about).

Bush is deluded enough to think that he's popular, and keeps grasping at straws in the vain hope of short-term victory in Iraq.

We haven't had an unpopular coup attempt before. One benefit of frequent elections -- when there is a sea change in politics, the winners unseat the losers with a minimum of drama and almost no bloodshed.

>> It is amazing to realize that Bush is in fact stupider than you are.

> LOL!!!

Seriously. You know at least a little about ancient Rome. I'm not clear that Bush knows much about modern Washington D.C.

>> You assert that Bush is plotting a coup, then chide him for his stupidity in so attempting!

I haven't asserted that Bush is plotting a coup. That would require discussion of who is the power behind the puppet, which is unhealthy to discuss in a public forum.

>> Well, I think you're an idiot for planning to rob that bank.

I agree completely. People who rob banks are idiots. You are an idiot. It does not follow that you are planning to rob a bank. However, it would not surprise me.

Re: That Bet?

[ihuitl.livejournal.com]

You can send drew some humble pie ;)

[morganhillchris.livejournal.com]

Thank You for your efforts to show your point backed with proof!
You're correct that trying to argue with the politically closed minded is an exercise in futility. You're giving these fools more of your precious energy than they deserve.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

So from now on, I simply treat conservatives as dangerously deluded at best and actively psychotic and opposed to my existence at worst. No point to talking politics with them.

There you go ... everyone who disagrees with you must be crazy! Now you've successfully insulated your mind against the intrusion of any heretical thoughts. I congratulate you!

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Wrong on all counts.

Conservatives <> (does not equal) everyone.

Go take a basic logic course and then come back and play with the adults. Oh, and take an etiquette course so you learn some elements of civility.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Conservatives <> (does not equal) everyone.

It allows you to dismiss any argument for any position you deem "conservative" by labelling it "crazy," no debate against it required.

Go take a basic logic course and then come back and play with the adults.

Basic logic courses teach that simply labelling a whole class of arguments "crazy" and thus automatically false is illogical.

Oh, and take an etiquette course so you learn some elements of civility.

You imagine your behavior, in dismissing all conservatives as "deluded," to be civil? Or do you hold yourself, for some ineffable reason, to be immune from the requirements of civility which you demand from others?

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

My LJ, my bat and ball and court. Deal with it or stop posting. If you can't handle the concept of property rights, somehow I'm not surprised.

I am willing to debate with people who debate in good faith. That means a search for truth, the willingness to cite and accept evidence, and shun falsehoods and evasions.

You are specifically not one of those people. Neither are most self-identified "conservatives" who are in fact dangerous radicals. Radical in that they wish to make major changes in American society. Dangerous in that those changes would materially harm many people who are my friends and fellow travelers.

I am no longer interested in paying you, or any conservative numbskull, any respect which you have not yet earned. Because my experience is that such respect will be abused.

I am speaking specifically about your comments regarding Normandy.

The next step is to ban you from this journal. Consider your next comments carefully, as they may be your last here.

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Given further insults including the statement that I am a "loon," Jordan179 has now been banned from my LJ. Life is too short to spend any time on an a--h--- like him.