E-Mail 'On Bush's and Lincoln's laws of war, and the left's complete lack of perspective' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'On Bush's and Lincoln's laws of war, and the left's complete lack of perspective' to a friend

Loading ...

13 Responses to "On Bush’s and Lincoln’s laws of war, and the left’s complete lack of perspective"

omapian says:

February 17, 2009 at 12:14 am

Lincoln used the fact that states in rebellion could not expect the Constitution to protect their choice to be slave or free states when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. States not in rebellion still had a choice to be slave or free.
Too Bad our current representatives cannot make a distinction between “we the people of the United States” and those who reject our form of government.
Anthony (Los Angeles) says:

February 17, 2009 at 2:11 am

One of the great books to read on presidential powers in wartime is Schlesinger’s “Imperial Presidency.” Yes, he was an arch-liberal historian and the book was framed to be a criticism of the Nixon administration, but his discussion of the evolution of the war powers is fascinating. Especially noteworthy in the context of Lincoln is his discussion of “prerogative:” government’s right to use even extra-constitutional means to preserve the nation from destruction.
Leslie says:

February 17, 2009 at 10:12 am

I’m only going to comment on Lincoln here, as FDR’s internment of the Japanese is now widely considered to have been unnecessary, and has been apologized for.

As for Lincoln, as ST’s quotes have made clear, he used what he regarded as his powers as commander in chief in wartime to effectively declare martial law. At that time, Congress met for only a few months a year, and I note that he cleverly failed to call them into a special session. He merely issued the decrees.

Fine.

How what he did applies to This Modern World, where the Congress meets year around, three days a week (and occasionally goes into overtime), I can’t imagine.

Imagine if Vallandigham (you know how to Wiki, don’t ya?) had a congressional investigating committee at his disposal!
alchemist says:

February 17, 2009 at 10:31 am

Let me put it this way… if I truly feared the collapse of our government by terrorist agents (or by Civil War, WWII or Red Dawn) then I would be more inclined to allow “extraordinary measures”. As terrible as 9/11 was, and as evil as our enemies are, I don’t think the threat is of that order of magnitude. The second problem is that this ‘war’ has no definite deadline for ending.

So when do these ‘extraordinary’ measures become obsolete? When Osama bin Laden is dead? When Al Queda is dead? When terrorist threats against America no longer exist? The last one seems unlikely to ever occur. Let me put it this way… would you be happy with Obama having unlimited power, (and unlimited time) to use wiretapping functions? Doesn’t that worry you at all?

I don’t care who it is, I don’t want a president to have limitless authority.

Furthermore, leaks show that these powers are NOT used as their stated intention. For example,the nightline report from last year, where translators said they picked up HUNDREDS of American soldier and diplomat private conversations to spouses. That seems like useless data to me.

Again, I agree that some use of these measures is necessary, but I want it managed by someone outside the white house, to ensure that the process is continued legally, productively, and without political axes. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
Sister Toldjah says:

February 17, 2009 at 10:34 am

I give up with you, alchemist. There was not one word in my post where I implied that I was in favor of “unlimited presidential power” – everything I wrote was to try to influence the left (that includes you) to put things in perspective rather than just assume Bush was blatantly grabbing power because he was “Hitler-esque.” Didn’t you read a word I wrote??
yo says:

February 17, 2009 at 11:45 am

Bits and pieces of the truth usually find their way to the surface eventually. This is why I don’t trust historians at all. They almost always have an agenda and I don’t know if the bits and pieces of truth have come out or not.

This lesson came to me some years back as I was watching documentaries of czar nicholas of russia. I concluded that what we normally hear about him and his reign is just the product of the communists. (otherwise known as the biggest liars in history)
alchemist says:

February 17, 2009 at 1:58 pm

Sure,I read your post, I’m just not responding the way you think I should.

The problem I have with Bush is not intent, (or that he was more extreme than presidents in previous wars, since he clearly wasn’t) but that war on terror is so abstract that these civil rights infringements could plausibly be used forever.

As such, it is different then FDR or Lincoln, whose extraordinary authority ended with a decisive victory. (Not necessarily worse, but different.). And yes, I agree that this powergrab is also different from Bush. More Nixonesque if anything(minus watergate).
alchemist says:

February 17, 2009 at 2:06 pm

oops… at the end I meant Bush’s powergrab is clearly different than Hitler.
Sister Toldjah says:

February 17, 2009 at 3:22 pm

Sure,I read your post, I’m just not responding the way you think I should.

??
Great White Rat says:

February 17, 2009 at 7:26 pm

that war on terror is so abstract that these civil rights infringements could plausibly be used forever

“Abstract”…interesting thought, alchemist. We should meet for lunch sometime and discuss how the WOT is “abstract”. How about at Windows on the World??

Oh wait…we can’t, because your “abstraction” turned it into a smoking hole in the ground some time ago.

ST was in New York that day, and I’ll guarantee that she doesn’t find islamic terrorism to be “abstract”. I watched it from across the river at the Newark Airport Hilton…it’s not “abstract” to me either. You – by now I’m convinced that you’re going to fudge your way out of acknowledging it until it walks up to you and cuts your head off. You brush off 9/11 like it was an isolated incident, not a klaxon that should have awakened every last one of us to the danger we face. Yes, even you. You could show AQ evidence that you voted for Gore, Kerry, and Obama and maybe even carried a No Blood For Oil sign at a rally, and they’d chop your head off a quickly as mine. And laugh while they’re doing it.

Still seem “abstract” to you?

Beyond that, your argument fails on other grounds.

First, you’re looking to find an excuse to say that unless we are dealing with a nation-state that fields a formal army, has defined boundaries, etc. , emergency measures can extend indefinitely. You’re making the mistake of fighting the last war, not the current one. Your logic is that as long as the enemy is not a “government”, it’s never possible to say they’ve been defeated (no formal articles of surrender), so therefore we should do – nothing that we didn’t do on, say, September 10, 2001.

But then you qualify your remarks by saying you might be OK with strong measures against terrorists, but only if it reached the point where “the collapse of our government” was imminent. The obvious contradiction, of course, is that if you resolve to take no strong action against non-governmental terrorism until you’re close to national collapse, you’re already too late. Personally, I’d be more concerned about the safety of the American people than preserving the power structure, but I’m not a leftist…

As for your Nightline report – so what? Did any of those calls Nightline cited result in anyone innocent winding up in Gitmo? If AQ is using the same channels to communicate as you do when you call Aunt Helga in Munich, of course the agencies monitoring calls will notice yours. The proof that the authority is NOT being abused is the fact that no official action was taken except when a real terrorist message is intercepted. And I guarantee you that if the eeeevil Bush and Cheney were rounding up people for the crime of calling overseas, our MSM would be on it in a minute. Nancy Pelosi would have called a special session to pass articles of impeachment before you could say “Chimpy McHitlerburton”.

You want to talk about abuse of power leading to curtailing liberty in this country? Obama’s move to politicize the Census Bureau has me more concerned for our freedoms than anything Bush did in 8 years.

But I’m sure you find anything at all that endangers freedom an “abstraction”, as long as it comes from the left.
omapian says:

February 17, 2009 at 11:29 pm

Back to the laws of war and putting things in perspective… The Supreme Court created an artificial right to privacy and the President now has to ask Congress for authority to provide for the common defense of the nation??? By that logic, the Supreme Court can protect Lady Godiva’s right to privacy by demanding that government agents look away from that which she placed on public display.
alchemist says:

February 18, 2009 at 10:35 am

GWR: The point I am continually making is that we cannot define an end to terror. Let’s say Al Queda is completely obliterated? Is the war on terror over? Or is there still a threat as long as Hamas, Iran, Taliban(et al) still have the chance to strike? The time in which ‘extraordinary powers’ are available could be infinite.

A future president could use this extraordinary power for an extended period of time with no checks and balances, and with no measurable end to those powers. Again, this situation is different from Civil/WWII where formal declarations of war were issued, and those powers ended with the formal end of war.

I believe Bush had no intentions of abusing the system. Still to accomplish goals in the GWOT, his administration did craft a number of legal opinions and ‘signing orders’ that insulated power in the executive in ways that could be abused in the future. And because that power is consolidated, there are fewer checks and balances to investigate such abuses.

To reiterate, I am deeply concerned about the GWOT being used to grant extraordinary powers indefinitely, with restricted ability to investigate abuses.
Great White Rat says:

February 18, 2009 at 5:06 pm

So let’s see….you admit that Bush’s use of extra powers was benign, but you’d deny it anyway, because of what some power-hungry future – or current – president might do.

Do you even realize the irony of what you’re saying? You and your friends on the left are the ones who advocate centralizing every aspect of power in Washington. Conservatives want that power redistributed to the states and to the people. Rather than take advantage of extraordinary power, a conservative president will seek to revoke those powers as soon as circumstances warrant. Only the left resists surrendering even the slightest bit of power over our lives.

In other words, the kind of president you’re worried about is the one you’d most likely support. If it were up to you, Bush would have been hampered in protecting Americans because you don’t trust the people you vote for.

Which means you’re either (a) totally confused or (b) just reciting your talking points. Option b looks more likely to me.

Comments are closed.