# The Bush Administration Trashes Civil Liberties of Americans **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 16, 2005, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856 "2005-12-16T03:02:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/301 "2005-12-20T19:33:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Please tell ME where I said it was OK for Bush to have done this? > > I never have, In fact, I’ve repeatedly said it’s poor public policy, it’s unwise, it’s not a good idea. > > BUT IT’S NOT CRIMINAL. So when Clinton chose to construe “sexual relations” as only including vaginal intercourse, he was not committing perjury, right? If you’re going to give one President the benefit of the doubt on these sorts of things, you might as well give it to Presidents of the opposing party. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/302 "2005-12-20T19:39:59Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > So when Clinton chose to construe “sexual relations” as only including vaginal intercourse, he was not committing perjury, right? If you’re going to give one President the benefit of the doubt on these sorts of things, you might as well give it to Presidents of the opposing party. Correct. I don’t contend that the definition of sexual relations was a basis for perjury. The acts that were the basis for perjury included his contact with Ms. Lewinsky’s breasts and genitalia, which the President himself conceded would fall within the definition of “sexual relations” as he understood it at the time. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/303 "2005-12-20T19:42:22Z")
So, are you just going to ignore the substantial difference between declarations of war and congressional authorization of force and the fact that the War Powers Act does not require the president to report to congress in event of a declaration of war? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/304 "2005-12-20T19:46:17Z")
> [@treis](#): > > So, are you just going to ignore the substantial difference between declarations of war and congressional authorization of force and the fact that the War Powers Act does not require the president to report to congress in event of a declaration of war? I’m not ignoring them. I’m saying that “declaration of war,” **as that term is used in 18 USC § 1811** , is not a rigorous term of art is it is in the War Powers Resolution. In §§ 1811, the phrase has its ordinary dictionary meaning. If Congress had meant otherwise, they would have included it in the definitions section, or they could have simply said, “a declaration of war as defined in section xxx of the War Powers Act.” But they didn’t - they left it alone, showing that it didn’t have any special meaning as used in that section. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/305 "2005-12-20T19:52:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not ignoring them. I’m saying that “declaration of war,” **as that term is used in 18 USC § 1811** , is not a rigorous term of art is it is in the War Powers Resolution. In §§ 1811, the phrase has its ordinary dictionary meaning. If Congress had meant otherwise, they would have included it in the definitions section, or they could have simply said, “a declaration of war as defined in section xxx of the War Powers Act.” But they didn’t - they left it alone, showing that it didn’t have any special meaning as used in that section. Even so, it doesn’t say 15 days per subject. It simply says 15 days. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/306 "2005-12-20T19:56:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not ignoring them. I’m saying that “declaration of war,” **as that term is used in 18 USC § 1811** , is not a rigorous term of art is it is in the War Powers Resolution. In §§ 1811, the phrase has its ordinary dictionary meaning. If Congress had meant otherwise, they would have included it in the definitions section, or they could have simply said, “a declaration of war as defined in section xxx of the War Powers Act.” But they didn’t - they left it alone, showing that it didn’t have any special meaning as used in that section. Of course it doesn’t have special meaning. It means exactly what it says, “a declaration of war” not, as you would have us believe, “congressional authorization to use force.” Why do you think that these are one in the same when the congressional authorization to use force is made in lines with an act that differentiates between declaration of war and congressional authoization to use force? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/307 "2005-12-20T20:01:12Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Even so, it doesn’t say 15 days per subject. It simply says 15 days. You know, I’ve noticed that when I completely address and rebut a point you’ve made (activist judges, the Clinton parallel) you never seem to acknowledge the point; you simply ignore it and move on to something else. Why is that? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/308 "2005-12-20T20:03:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You know, I’ve noticed that when I completely address and rebut a point you’ve made (activist judges, the Clinton parallel) you never seem to acknowledge the point; you simply ignore it and move on to something else. > > Why is that? Because you’ve done so only in your own imagination, perhaps? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/309 "2005-12-20T20:03:38Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Of course it doesn’t have special meaning. It means exactly what it says, “a declaration of war” not, as you would have us believe, “congressional authorization to use force.” > > Why do you think that these are one in the same when the congressional authorization to use force is made in lines with an act that differentiates between declaration of war and congressional authoization to use force? Because if Congress wanted to refer to the specific definition, they could have easily done so. It’s done all the time in law: there’s a definition section in most laws, or the law will refer to another section for the precise definition. When a law fails to do that, I argue that it’s the simple dictionary definition, not the phrase as it may be used elsewhere, that is meant. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/310 "2005-12-20T20:23:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because if Congress wanted to refer to the specific definition, they could have easily done so. It’s done all the time in law: there’s a definition section in most laws, or the law will refer to another section for the precise definition. When a law fails to do that, I argue that it’s the simple dictionary definition, not the phrase as it may be used elsewhere, that is meant. Can you show me a place where declaration of war is defined in any other law? ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/311 "2005-12-20T20:34:18Z")
How Clintonian of you, **Bricker**! So basically, the War on Terror and the Iraq War are official wars when you need them to be (when you want to give the executive unlimited power), and not official wars when you don’t need them to be (not subject to the War Powers Act). And even though the President declared the end of official hostilities in Iraq in May, 2003, the war-that-is-not-war there still continues to give the president unlimited emergency powers. Even though we are in firm control of Afghanistan and have replaced its government with a new elected one, we are still at war with…somebody…and that gives the president unlimited emergency powers to do whatever he likes. What about the War on Drugs? By your argument, couldn’t the president assume emergency powers to wiretap everyone in the United States to further his prosecution of that particular war-that-is-not-war? Did Johnson’s War on Poverty give him unlimited emergency powers? What about the long-raging Cola Wars? And since “RAW is WAR”, does Vince McMahon have unlimited executive powers, or would those powers fall to whoever is in possession of the Championship belt? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/312 "2005-12-20T20:38:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You know, I’ve noticed that when I completely address and rebut a point you’ve made (activist judges, the Clinton parallel) you never seem to acknowledge the point; you simply ignore it and move on to something else. > > Why is that? Consider your points officially acknowledged. Not to throw stones when I live in a glass house, but I’ve seen the same type of behavior from you in the past. ---
**Author:** ![Fat\_Chance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8baadc/32.png) [@Fat\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fat_Chance)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/313 "2005-12-20T20:43:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You know, I’ve noticed that when I completely address and rebut a point you’ve made (activist judges, the Clinton parallel) you never seem to acknowledge the point; you simply ignore it and move on to something else. > > Why is that? You mean like EXACTLY what you did with that response? Over 2 threads and countless people asking you about the 15 days, you won’t respond. And then he asks you again, and instead of answering you insult him??? Kind of like simply ignoring it and moving on to something else… ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/314 "2005-12-20T21:05:18Z")
That was a typical **december** tactic, too. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/315 "2005-12-20T21:08:36Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Can you show me a place where declaration of war is defined in any other law? Nope. But that just means that we should apply a dictionary definition. If Congress wanted a specific defintion, they would have written it in or referred to it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/316 "2005-12-20T21:14:57Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Consider your points officially acknowledged. Not to throw stones when I live in a glass house, but I’ve seen the same type of behavior from you in the past. I try my best to acknowledge points made. “Good point,” “Right you are,” or some such, before moving on. But if I haven’t, then I, too, apologize for the lack. And to answer your question about the fifteen days: my [post 289](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6917309&postcount=289). > [@Fat Chance](#): > > You mean like EXACTLY what you did with that response? Over 2 threads and countless people asking you about the 15 days, you won’t respond. And then he asks you again, and instead of answering you insult him??? Kind of like simply ignoring it and moving on to something else… You mean to imply I’ve never answered that question? I think I did, in post [post 289](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6917309&postcount=289). ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/317 "2005-12-20T21:15:10Z")
Sorry to interrupt this _ex officio_ meeting of the GD law review club 😉 but new revelations have been made re: spying issues. [Apparently the FBI has been spying on](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?ei=5094&en=171df5b870cdd147&hp=&ex=1135141200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print) – er, sorry, has “expressed interest in” – certain U.S. social/political activist groups, ranging from PETA to a Catholic charity fighting hunger and poverty. > [@Today's NYT](#): > > One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a “Vegan Community Project.” Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group’s “semi-communistic ideology.” A third indicates the bureau’s interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. > > … > > When the F.B.I. investigates evidence of possible violence or criminal disruptions at protests and other events, those investigations are routinely handled by agents within the bureau’s counterterrorism division. > > But the groups mentioned in the newly disclosed F.B.I. files questioned both the propriety of characterizing such investigations as related to “terrorism” and the necessity of diverting counterterrorism personnel from more pressing investigations. > > “The fact that we’re even mentioned in the F.B.I. files in connection with terrorism is really troubling,” said Tom Wetterer, general counsel for Greenpeace. “There’s no property damage or physical injury caused in our activities, and under any definition of terrorism, we’d take issue with that.” Apparently a Catholic charity’s alleged “semi-communist ideology” (whatever the fuck that means) is worth noting in an FBI file??? Have we been transported to 1955? Gee, J. Edgar Hoover and Nixon would be proud. How long until we find out that the FBI had “discussed” their “interest” in various Democratic politicians’ campaign headquarters? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/318 "2005-12-20T21:17:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nope. But that just means that we should apply a dictionary definition. If Congress wanted a specific defintion, they would have written it in or referred to it. Interesting, so you contend that when we read the War Powers Act: > [@](#): > > The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. We should take (1), (2) and (3) to constitute legally the same thing? If not, on what basis do you rest the differening definitions of “declaration of war” between the War Powers Act and § 1811. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/319 "2005-12-20T21:17:55Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > notwithstanding adv : despite anything to the contrary, or in spite of > > I can take this to mean, notwithstanding any pre-existing or conflicting law (not USC 50). So, then it means all the rest of USC 50 1801-1821applies, as 1811 is one small subset of it - unless all the rest, 1801 through 1821 was just verbage to pad the word count. No. It means notwithstanding any other LAW, not “any other law except these others in this same chapter.” It means that §§ 1811 stands on its own, period, regardless of the provisions of any other law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856/320 "2005-12-20T21:22:58Z")
> [@treis](#): > > We should take (1), (2) and (3) to constitute legally the same thing? If not, on what basis do you rest the differening definitions of “declaration of war” between the War Powers Act and § 1811. It’s not at all uncommon for a phrase to have a general meaning in law, but a specific meaning when used in one small section of law. For example, a law may prohibit the carrying of a concealed weapon, and another law may prohibit assault with a weapon. The list for the concealed weapon will typically be very precise. There is no list associated with the “assault” law; anything used in an assault may qualify as a weapon for the purposes of that law. Hitting someone with a pipe wrench would be a crime under the “assault with a weapon” law. But the “carrying a concealed weapon” law would not penalize someone for carrying a concealed pipe wrench. So – (1), (2), and (3) in your example refer to three different things. But when that same phrase is used in §§ 1811, it has a more general meaning. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bush-administration-trashes-civil-liberties-of-americans/335856.md?page=17)