I decided I'm in favor of Military Commissions Act 2006

The BBQ Pit
1

I’ve just discovered on YouTube some clips of Keith Olbermann & Jonathan Turley bemoaning the Military Commissions Act of 2006 & the “end of habeas corpus.”

Here’s my take. There is no political will in Congress even now to impeach Bush. They are entirely too willing to let him have his own courts, his own shadow government. And the next President, Democrat or Republican, will exult in the power it gives him, as will all future Presidents until that power is taken away.

But you know, I want Bush to face judgment for his crimes. And under the regime pre-2006, there was no way to do that. Even Kissinger walks free along with all the architects of the School of the Americas.

Impeachment won’t bring Bush to justice. He’ll be out of office, but a free man who conveniently pardons himself, Cheney, & all their lackeys right before being removed. Or, probably Cheney does it for him, since there is no precedent for “simulpeachment” & no will for it where it counts. Congress will only impeach one of them & assume that’s enough to chasten the other–which is poppycock. These guys broke the standing laws before getting the laws formally rewritten to suit them.

So I say, let it stand. Then elect as next POTUS the one man most likely to declare the Cheney wing of the GOP Establishment “enemy combatants” to a man, & he can swiftly round up the lot of them & sentence them to 23 years apiece cleaning up the excrement of such persons as a freed John Walker Lindh & Jose Padilla–by tongue.

Such a President would surely be impeached, for sinning against the comfortable cocky self-assuredness of the ruling class, & the Congress would rethink the whole “vast Presidential authority” idea. And Bush/Cheney/Gonzales would be hoist on their own petard, if only for a little while, while under the normal rules they can enjoy the same insider immunity that Reagan granted the Iran/Contra gang.

Where can we find such a candidate, who sees power as a thing to be grasped only so long to beat its previous wielders about the head & shoulders with a sharp stick? I don’t know.

However, I turn 35 in June of next year, so I contingently nominate myself.

2

Moderator’s Note: I’m thinking this is more of a rant than a debate topic, so down it goes.

3

I was waiting for that. Now let me be the first to add BUSH IS TEH SUXXORZ!!!111!!!

4

Does anyone else find it ironic that this dismissive comment has become exactly the sort of shallow ideological mantra is was once meant to be satire of?
**
buns3000**, it’s over man. It was funny the first couple times. Instead, why not write something like “Hey, we’ve discussed the end of the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus for everyone and the end of the actual statutory right of Habeas for any foreigner the white house selects. Why would you bring this up again unless you just blindly hate Bush?” It gets the same point across, I think.

5

I nominate Kim Hawk.

6

:Skims Lib’s link:

:Shudder: Bloody Libertarian.

I’ve had quite of enough of your ilk in power with the Libertarian wing of the “Conservative” movement.

Though I get what you’re saying, I think the real end result of radical Libertarianism is, in fact, lawless tyranny.

7

Yes, indeed. When you start protecting people from fraud and aggression, god only knows how they’ll cope. At any rate, do you actually want someone who’ll dismantle the power and corruption, or were you just interpreting your belly button lint? :smiley:

8

Eh. All the next Administration has to do is offer up Bush, Cheney et al to any country who wants them for war crimes. Problem solved, and our hands are clean(er).

9

Wouldn’t that be nice? Unfortunately, nothing will ever happen to them. The next administration (and the next, and the next) won’t dare punish them because it will make them vulnerable to punishment when they pull similar shit. And they will pull similar shit, be they Democrat or Republican.

I nominate Kim Hawk.

10

Libertarians aren’t the answer. Leaving aside whether Kim Hawk’s particular government-trimming cited above was justified, a general prejudice towards as little government as possible means the extra layers of government, the watchers of the watchmen, get dismantled as “waste.” This allows the layers that remain to behave like the Chimere under Aristide.

11

The watchers of the watchmen don’t seem to have been very effective lately.