[IP] Conservative Columnist: To call this an imperial presidency is unfair to emperors
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Robert J. Berger" <rberger@xxxxxxx>
Date: December 26, 2005 3:36:45 PM EST
To: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dewayne Hendricks
<dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Conservative Columnist: To call this an imperial presidency
is unfair to emperors
Steve Chapman
Beyond the imperial presidency
Published December 25, 2005
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/premium/printedition/
Sunday/perspective/chi-0512250256dec25,1,4979840.column?coll=chi-news-
hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of
the federal government should be limited but the powers of the
president should not. He wants judges to interpret the
Constitution as the framers did, but doesn't think he should be
constrained by their intentions.
He attacked Al Gore for trusting government instead of the
people, but he insists anyone who wants to defeat terrorism must
put absolute faith in the man at the helm of government.
His conservative allies say Bush is acting to uphold the
essential prerogatives of his office. Vice President Cheney says
the administration's secret eavesdropping program is justified
because "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and
I think that the world we live in demands it."
But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving
formula: What's good for George W. Bush is good for America, and
anything that weakens his power weakens the nation. To call this
an imperial presidency is unfair to emperors.
Even people who should be on Bush's side are getting
queasy. David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative
Union, says in his efforts to enlarge executive authority, Bush
"has gone too far."
He's not the only one who feels that way. Consider the case of
Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in 2002 on suspicion of
plotting to set off a "dirty bomb." For three years, the
administration said he posed such a grave threat that it had the
right to detain him without trial as an enemy combatant. In
September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed.
But then, rather than risk a review of its policy by the Supreme
Court, the administration abandoned its hard-won victory and
indicted Padilla on comparatively minor criminal charges. When
it asked the 4th Circuit Court for permission to transfer him
from military custody to jail, though, the once-cooperative
court flatly refused.
In a decision last week, the judges expressed amazement that the
administration suddenly would decide Padilla could be treated
like a common purse snatcher--a reversal that, they said, comes
"at substantial cost to the government's credibility." The
court's meaning was plain: Either you were lying to us then, or
you are lying to us now.
If that's not enough to embarrass the president, the opinion was
written by conservative darling J. Michael Luttig--who just a
couple of months ago was on Bush's short list for the Supreme
Court. For Luttig to question Bush's use of executive power is
like Bill O'Reilly announcing that there's too much Christ in
Christmas.
This is hardly the only example of the president demanding
powers he doesn't need. When American-born Saudi Yasser Hamdi
was captured in Afghanistan, the administration also detained
him as an enemy combatant rather than entrust him to the
criminal justice system.
But when the Supreme Court said he was entitled to a hearing
where he could present evidence on his behalf, the
administration decided that was way too much trouble. It freed
him and put him on a plane back to Saudi Arabia, where he may
plot jihad to his heart's content. Try to follow this logic:
Hamdi was too dangerous to put on trial but not too dangerous to
release.
The disclosure that the president authorized secret and probably
illegal monitoring of communications between people in the
United States and people overseas again raises the question:
Why?
The government easily could have gotten search warrants to
conduct electronic surveillance of anyone with the slightest
possible connection to terrorists. The court that handles such
requests hardly ever refuses. But Bush bridles at the notion
that the president should ever have to ask permission of anyone.
He claims he can ignore the law because Congress granted
permission when it authorized him to use force against Al
Qaeda. But we know that can't be true. Atty. Gen. Alberto
Gonzales says the administration didn't ask for a revision of
the law to give the president explicit power to order such
wiretaps because Congress--a Republican Congress, mind
you--wouldn't have agreed. So the administration decided: Who
needs Congress?
What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless
one. At times like this, it's apparent that Cheney and Bush want
more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but
because they want more power. Another paradox: In their conduct
of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but they can't be
bothered to earn it.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Robert J. Berger - Internet Bandwidth Development, LLC.
Voice: 408-882-4755 eFax: +1-408-490-2868
http://www.ibd.com
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/