Al Gore warns us about Bush

[Liberal]

Please take a moment to read this speech by Al Gore. It is one of the finest speeches by a politician in modern times:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0624-15.htm

Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft have brought us these…

[ul]
[li]…the president may take away any person’s freedom by labelling him an enemy combatant[/li][li]…the president may imprison a person indefinitely, without charges and without counsel[/li][li]…the president may direct the armed forces to invade any sovereign nation for any reason[/li][li]…no law or treaty may constrain the president’s treatment of prisoners in time of war[/li][li]…the president is not subject to any law while he is acting as commander in chief[/li][li]…the president may consolidate his powers as head of government with his powers as commander in chief such that both are privileged from interference by Congress[/li][li]…the president may unilaterally declare a permanent state of war[/li][li]…the president is authorized to define and enumerate our freedoms[/li][/ul]
Only an authoritarian could defend this presidency with a straight face. No matter whether you are on the left or right, or if you are a liberal or conservative, this is not what you want for America. Nevermind Michael Moore. Nevermind analysis of facial expressions in a Florida classroom. Nevermind how stupid Bush is. America is dying, and it’s not funny anymore.

I have to say that I am going to have to bite the bullet once and for all and make the decision to vote for Kerry, and I encourage all those who cherish freedom to do the same. Please. It may be nothing more than the lesser of two evils, but there comes a point in the midst of a drowning where you simply must begin to flail because there is the outside chance that your hand will grab onto something that floats.

Read Gore’s speech now. It may not be long before it is illegal to do so.

[GaWd]

I’m never sure what to make of your posts, Lib. It seems out of character for you to be praising a democrat, so I’ll assume this was parody, or sarcasm until I hear otherwise.

Let me know if I’ve been completely whooshed…

Sam

[World_Eater]

Jesus, my eyes glazed over after 3 paragraphs. A good 3 paragraphs though.

[MaxTheVool]

I think Lib is quite serious. And he’s right. It’s an excellent speech which makes a number of telling points.
Anyone want to rebut it?

[Liberal]

@GaWd

I’m never sure what to make of your posts, Lib. It seems out of character for you to be praising a democrat, so I’ll assume this was parody, or sarcasm until I hear otherwise.

Let me know if I’ve been completely whooshed…

Sam

Consider whether it is out of character for me to praise men who champion freedom and defend liberty. Any man who does this is a friend of mine, Democrat or otherwise.

[El_Kabong]

…the president may imprison a person indefinitely, without charges and without counsel

Believe me, I’ll be as happy as anyone to see the back of our current Prez, but didn’t the Supreme Court just rule that persons under Executive Detention do in fact have the right to counsel, and to initiate Habeus Corpus proceedings?

Read Gore’s speech now. It may not be long before it is illegal to do so.

Really? Some law against speechifyin’ coming up that we don’t know about?

[Liberal]

Here is an exerpt that will entice you to read:

What would Thomas Jefferson think of the curious and discredited argument from our Justice Department that the president may authorize what plainly amounts to the torture of prisoners - and that any law or treaty, which attempts to constrain his treatment of prisoners in time of war is itself a violation of the constitution our founders put together.

What would Benjamin Franklin think of President Bush’s assertion that he has the inherent power - even without a declaration of war by the Congress - to launch an invasion of any nation on Earth, at any time he chooses, for any reason he wishes, even if that nation poses no imminent threat to the United States.

How long would it take James Madison to dispose of our current President’s recent claim, in Department of Justice legal opinions, that he is no longer subject to the rule of law so long as he is acting in his role as Commander in Chief.

I think it is safe to say that our founders would be genuinely concerned about these recent developments in American democracy and that they would feel that we are now facing a clear and present danger that has the potential to threaten the future of the American experiment.

Shouldn’t we be equally concerned? And shouldn’t we ask ourselves how we have come to this point?

[GaWd]

@Liberal

Consider whether it is out of character for me to praise men who champion freedom and defend liberty. Any man who does this is a friend of mine, Democrat or otherwise.

Point taken, and a ‘Hear! Hear!’ added for emphasis.

Sam

[Mr.Moto]

Well, I think there’s a general case to be made about limiting power in the executive. I don’t think Al Gore is in a place of moral superiority to make that case, though.

He was an active participant in an administration that hid corruption behind numerous, fraudulent claims of executive privilege. And one of his best known quotes is, “…no controlling legal authority.”

The real problem is that Congress isn’t taking its duties seriously. I think real reform and accountability needs to come from that branch. They, and not the courts, were intended to be the watchdogs.

[Inigo_Montoya]

If Lib’s cracking wise then I guess he may have overestimated our (or at least my) ability to sense his humor. Taken at face value his post makes sense and I agree with it in spirit.

Of course, I’m a bit of a fascist who thinks that the best government for large populations is an authoritarian dictator. It is unfortunate, however, that there have been few if any such people in power that have had the best interest of their subjects behind their every decision & decree. Pericles I think was the last god one…I’m probably wrong.

Democracy is a good thing when everybody involved have a voice and has confidence that his voice is heard. Republics are good for larger populations, but only when the representative can feel pressure from his constituents to perform the spirit of their will. But for a nation, as well as a large corporation, a large church, or a large college…one brain, one plan, one person with absolute authority.

Bush is going for that authority, and he must not be allowed to get it–he’s bad bad bad.

[Liberal]

@El_Kabong

Really? Some law against speechifyin’ coming up that we don’t know about?

When you read the speech, you will see that Gore’s point is that the law is beginning to make no difference.

The last time we had a president who had the idea that he was above the law was when Richard Nixon told an interviewer, “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal… If the president, for example approves something, approves an action because of national security, or, in this case, because of a threat to internal peace and order, of significant order, then the president’s decision in this instance is one that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating the law.”

Fortunately for our country, Nixon was forced to resign as President before he could implement his outlandish interpretation of the Constitution, but not before his defiance of the Congress and the courts created a serious constitutional crisis.

The two top Justice Department officials under President Nixon, Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus, turned out to be men of great integrity, and even though they were loyal Republicans, they were more loyal to the constitution and resigned on principle rather than implement what they saw as abuses of power by Nixon. Then Congress, also on a bipartisan basis, bravely resisted Nixon’s abuse of power and launched impeachment proceedings.

In some ways, our current President is actually claiming significantly more extra-constitutional power, vis-à-vis Congress and the courts, than Nixon did. For example, Nixon never claimed that he could imprison American citizens indefinitely without charging them with a crime and without letting them see a lawyer or notify their families. And this time, the attorney general, John Ashcroft, is hardly the kind of man who would resign on principle to impede an abuse of power. In fact, whenever there is an opportunity to abuse power in this administration, Ashcroft seems to be leading the charge. And it is Ashcroft who picked the staff lawyers at Justice responsible for the embarrassing memos justifying and enabling torture.

Moreover, in sharp contrast to the courageous 93rd Congress that saved the country from Richard Nixon’s sinister abuses, the current Congress has virtually abdicated its constitutional role to serve as an independent and coequal branch of government.

Instead, this Republican-led Congress is content, for the most part, to take orders from the President on what they vote for and what they don’t vote for. The Republican leaders of the House and Senate have even started blocking Democrats from attending conference committee meetings, where legislation takes its final form, and instead, they let the President’s staff come to the meetings and write key parts of the laws for them. (Come to think of it, the decline and lack of independence shown by this Congress would shock our founders more than anything else, because they believed that the power of the Congress was the most important check and balance against the unhealthy exercise of too much power by the Executive branch.)

[GaWd]

@Liberal

Here is an exerpt that will entice you to read:

I really need no enticing to read this speech. I am already into the heart of it, and as you say, it is a fine speech. A speech so fine as to make all other speeches from recent memory pale in comparison, and sincerely long for the 2000 elections to have gone differently(whether a fault of Gore’s or a fault of the legal system is not at issue).

Sam

[Liberal]

@Mr. Moto

He was an active participant in an administration that hid corruption behind numerous, fraudulent claims of executive privilege. And one of his best known quotes is, “…no controlling legal authority.”

But people can change. They can grow and learn, particularly given new perspectives. Whatever he might have said or done in the past, unless he is whooshing us all, he has in my opinion grown into a statesman. And he is talking about the things we should be talking about. He’s not reading tea-leaves and picking at gnats here. This isn’t about how Bush pronounces “nuclear”. It’s about how he tramples liberty.

[Liberal]

@GaWd

I really need no enticing to read this speech. I am already into the heart of it, and as you say, it is a fine speech. A speech so fine as to make all other speeches from recent memory pale in comparison, and sincerely long for the 2000 elections to have gone differently(whether a fault of Gore’s or a fault of the legal system is not at issue).

Sam

I completely agree. Ron Paul could have given this speech.

[Cheesesteak]

@El_Kabong

didn’t the Supreme Court just rule that persons under Executive Detention do in fact have the right to counsel, and to initiate Habeus Corpus proceedings?

SHHHHHH! We’re trying to get the word out that Bush is a dictator who has destroyed the Constitution. And for God’s sake, don’t mention a THING about that Iraq resolution passed in both the House and Senate. Remember, Bush is evil, and he invaded Iraq by his own authority alone!

I find it rather telling that Liberal ignored this part of your post, and focused on the “speechifying” part.

Just to put a finer point on it, if the president is operating unchecked, it’s not HIS fault, it’s the fault of the checkers who refuse to do their jobs. Congress and the Courts are charged with this task, why aren’t you talking about them?

[Liberal]

@Cheesesteak

I find it rather telling that Liberal ignored this part of your post, and focused on the “speechifying” part.

What? I did not ignore it. Did you even read the response? Democrats are being excluded from the law-making process. How the hell do you check something when you can’t even get into the room?

[lno]

@Cheesesteak

Just to put a finer point on it, if the president is operating unchecked, it’s not HIS fault, it’s the fault of the checkers who refuse to do their jobs. Congress and the Courts are charged with this task, why aren’t you talking about them?

Maybe you missed what was posted earlier? Here, I’ll quote it for you. Underlining mine.

Moreover, in sharp contrast to the courageous 93rd Congress that saved the country from Richard Nixon’s sinister abuses, the current Congress has virtually abdicated its constitutional role to serve as an independent and coequal branch of government.

Instead, this Republican-led Congress is content, for the most part, to take orders from the President on what they vote for and what they don’t vote for. The Republican leaders of the House and Senate have even started blocking Democrats from attending conference committee meetings, where legislation takes its final form, and instead, they let the President’s staff come to the meetings and write key parts of the laws for them. (Come to think of it, the decline and lack of independence shown by this Congress would shock our founders more than anything else, because they believed that the power of the Congress was the most important check and balance against the unhealthy exercise of too much power by the Executive branch.)

[Cheesesteak]

@Liberal

How the hell do you check something when you can’t even get into the room?

Um… vote against it? You know, the opposite of what they did when the Iraq resolution was voted upon. One might also think that a politician might make mention of this somewhere other than in a speech by Al Gore. I’ll plead ignorance if they have been complaining far and wide about this shabby treatment, I haven’t heard it before.

lno, Please note that the OP is taking Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft to task, not Congress. Even while providing that quote he didn’t say it was a deficiency in congress, he said “Gore’s point is that the law is beginning to make no difference.” He’s suggesting that what we need is to vote for Kerry, not to vote for Congressmen with spines.

[Liberal]

You are a rapscallion. I cannot believe that you are defending the ongoing implementation of totalitarianism by worming your way through the interstices of the OP. Is this what conservatism has come to mean? Marxism without redistribution? Just give it all to the bureaucratic fat cats and fuck the electorate? You sound like a Tory in 1776. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[rjung]

While I applaud Liberal’s rousing OP and call to arms, I have to wonder what took him so long – I mean, a lot of folks on the “anyone but Bush” side of the fence have been raising these same points for months, if not years, already.

Still, better late than never.

(And you really ought to go see Fahrenheit 9/11, Lib, since Moore makes many of the same points in the film.)