I do believe we are oft topic here, the question is not who did worse but do we want to be a county that resorts to the same barbaric measures we have ourselves denounced. Sorry but being a really patriot absolutely requires dissent when your country does wrong. I for one will continue to hold American up to her promises. If we want to keep to randomly exclaiming "The Us is the best country on Earth" then we need to live up to those valves that make our freedom so prized. "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" By the way, drive a ford.
Why don't you conservatives watch something beside Fuax news.
Literacy is a Liberal value, as if we were the anti-intellectuals.
Apparently you aren't even moderately well-read.
You see, before this present constitution was adopted--the one which you claim has been subverted by George the Younger--the nation was founded under what is known as the Articles of Confederation (not to be confused with the confederacy of the American Civil War). It proved, in its relatively short lifespan, to be a disaster in the making for a number of reasons but primarily for matters of collective national security. To remediate these problems the constitution as we have it today was proposed but there was resistence to its adoption. Then govenor of New York, George Clinton (who, if Ben Franklin is to be believed, is quite generous with his military stocks if properly plied with wine) writing under the pen-name of the ancient statesman Cato, wrote a series of editorials condemning the abandonment of the AoC. In no small part his protests rested on the fear of a government too powerful to restrain should it ever fall to evil men. Certainly a sympathetic notion and one that weighs on the heart of genuine conservatives.
However, Gov. Clinton's protests were not left unchallenged. John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton responded with a series of rebuttals since collected and referred to as The Federalist Papers. We can bicker all day about what we think they meant but the FP hold great insight into the motivations of the constitution you claim has been subverted (more on that in a minute). Mr Hamilton wrote one particularly prescient missive,
Federalist No. 23. I should like to quote some of it if I may:
The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation, because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. This power ought to be coextensive with all the possible combinations of such circumstances; and ought to be under the direction of the same councils which are appointed to preside over the common defense.
"No constitutional shackles can be wisely imposed?" The devil you say!
"But what is to stop a president, without constitutional shackles, from oppressing the people he is charged to protect?" you say. "Weren't these the very same people who had, by the skin of their teeth, defeated a tyrannical king only a couple of decades earlier? Were these the same people who raised up this great nation from the fear of despots and their excesses?"
Yes.
But this all depends, quite reasonably, upon the subject of his attentions. A president can wiretap and waterboard as he deems fitting so long as the subject of his efforts are those intent upon stealing into the US for the sole express purpose of bringing violence to America's economy, political insitutions and civil populace.
Now, if a president were to do such a thing to a law-abiding, non-violent member of a political opposition party it would be another affair altogether. The constitution makes quite clear that we possess the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances.
It is the ability to know the difference that makes all the difference between a good president, faithfully discharging his duties as Commander in Chief as well as a good citizen who is vigilant against the excesses of power. But no one is served by allowing degenerate sub-human filth operate freely, or worse, protected by US law. They act to subvert the constituion through violence. It is a contradiction of logic to say the constitution is subverted by protecting it so long as the target is an enemy of the US.
"But congress has made laws saying we shall not torture," you say.
Would that all laws passed over all time by congress were wise and infallible but here we find the crux of the debate. First, what is torture? Can techniques used almost daily on our own military personnel truly be considered torture? If it is allowed to be defined subjectively we mmight as well close down any prison and house all killers and thugs in 5-star hotel accomodations.
But more to the point the Supreme Court has delineated 3 tiers of presidential power. When the president acts:
* in opposition to congress' stated wishes
* on matters wherein congress has remained silent and
* in concert with congress
Naturally, a president acting in opposition to congress faces impeachment. However, consider a president sitting meekly behind his desk as his intelligence services feed him reports day-after-day telling him foreign operatives are inside the US and planning an attack but their identies and location are not known, only that their instructions are being conveyed be a series of code-phrases but the phones being used are discarded after each use. This president cannot use the most expedient method--a blanket sweep of electronic signals that filter select words and phrases--because congress has forbidden such sweeps wherein there is the possibility of an American citizen or an exchange junction residing in US territory being involved in the tap.
I would think once the operatives were stopped if the story came to light it would quickly come down to a matter of: yes, the president violated the written law, but the threat was genuine and his options were few. The American people--the best guarantors of their own liberty--survey the facts and shrug as they continue on in their daily lives...unmolested. Such scenarios have played out, but moreover the president did not operate in absolute secrecy. He briefed select members of the senate including many within the democrat party and they chose to remain silent lest the worst of our fears be made manifest.
Yet, I cannot help but think if it came to light the president had tapped the phones of the leader of the opposing political party, or perhaps hid his knowledge that his own operatives had burgled a campaign headquarters, the indignation from the streets would force such a president to resign.
But what is truly disturbing is how the safety of the American people has become the subject of cheap politcal revenge. If it is subversion of constittuional rights ask youself: Which party would specifically target media outlets of its political opponents? Which party would allow its citizens to killed without due process for no reason other than that person has not been born? Which party exceeds the specifically enumerated powers of congress to consume the wealth of certain classes of citizens and give it to those most likely to vote in its favor? Which party operates in direct opposition of the expressed rights of religion and gun ownership? Which party would create laws to protect unlawful combatants from a duly-elected president genuinely and without malice seeking to protect the US?
There is your subversion.
