As it turns out, there really hasn’t been any news in the case of Bilal Hussein — an Iraqi stringer working for the Associated Press with a history of taking staged photographs of Islamic terrorists (as featured in “The Big Picture(s)”) — since the US military announced its plans to seek a criminal charges against Hussein in an Iraqi court.
However, Tom Curley, president and chief executive of the AP, has penned an op-ed for the Washington Post, titled “Railroading A Journalist in Iraq,” which complains that they haven’t been shown the evidence against Hussein before he is even formally charged, even though that is how the Iraqi judiciary — and every judiciary of which I am aware — works.
And when Tom Curley rants, it’s news to the AP, which promptly ran a story based on the opinion column, without noting that the US military, Iraqi police or judiciary are not required to disclose the evidence against Hussein before he is charged.
It is the sort of thing which makes one wonder about the AP’s commitment to its own stated values:
In the 21st century, that news is transmitted in more ways than ever before – in print, on the air and on the Web, with words, images, graphics, sounds and video. But always and in all media, we insist on the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news.
***
It means we avoid behavior or activities that create a conflict of interest and compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action.
Of course, none of this applies if an AP stringer is detained as a security threat. In that case, the AP will not disqualify itself from reporting on the case. Instead, the AP’s president will attack the US and Iraqi sytems, and the AP will report those attacks as news stories. No doubt their reportage of the case will continue in the same unbiased manner, free from the influence of Tom Curley.
I like how he fellates the Iraqis…
But goes ape-shit hostile on the U.S…
What a shameful fucking tool. You’d never know we were at war.
It sounds like Curley is writing about the AP instead of the U.S. Government:
After months of stony silence, except for leaks of unsupported and self-serving allegations to friendly media outlets………. designed to put the U.S. Government and its lawyers at an extreme disadvantage.
Changed that last bit slightly.
The defense is entitled to squat before arraignment, and Curley has got to know that.
This is the “pound the table” moment to cover for the AP complicity – unwitting or not – with a jihadist agent on their payroll.
With a top dog like that, is it any wonder we’d find a Bilal Hussein working for them?
This is important.
Yeah, because the press would never try to make someone look guilty before anything is charged or proven. Ask Richard Jewel.
What does that even fucking mean?
Curley’s piece is very lawyer-esque. Note that a defense attorney need not prove his client is innocent, merely introduce a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors that he is guilty. If one is accused of murder, for instance, it is sufficient to show a likelihood that someone else, who need not be named, may have committed the crime or that the victim may not have been murdered.
The closest he comes to declaring Hussein’s innocence is when he declares, “We believe Bilal’s crime was taking photographs the U.S. government did not want its citizens to see.” Aside from that he merely attacks the tactics and motives of the military/prosecution. Never does he assert that, through the AP’s vetting process or through his or his organization’s relationship with Hussein that they can attest that he is not what the military alleges he is, a terrorist.
When one factors that the jihadis consider the media to be simply another battlefield in the war, it is reasonable to assume that someone who is given such incredibly inside access to their fighters and their operations is nothing more than a propagandist for them. In this context, it would seem that the burden of proof, at least to me and most Americans, would fall on Hussein/AP/Curley. That Curley makes no such attempt is quite revealing in and of itself.
They want to see the evidence first, Mike. Hah.
Hussein took my family portrait; he used a lot of photoshop and pyrotechnics. Nice guy though….
Funny, I didn’t know we were talking about China. But, then again, the AP doesn’t seem to be very interested in the Chinese prison camp system.
I’m of 2 minds on this one. One the one hand, the actual content of the oped and article are bunk, just another opportunity for the AP to show its love for the country in which it got its start. On the other, this is kind of expected, as failure to go to bat for this employee before we know the charges would seem like the organization didn’t support those that work for them. It will be interesting to see if the tune changes either after the charges are disclosed or during/after the trial.
My gut instinct is that Bilal Hussein started out honest enough, sold a few pics, then felt the pressure from AP to get more, and more, of even more graphic scenes, and while your at it, try to be on the scene while the attack/ambush/whatever is going down…
So, being a bit greedy, he played tried playing both ends against the middle…and involved himself with the terrorists to ‘stage’ a couple shots that cost American lives.
Why else the incarceration?
Too bad we can’t draft Hussein, if he was a soldier the AP would be bringing the rope.
As I commented before, if the evidence comes out against him and he’s tried farily they can shoot him for all I care.
But I have 2 points:
1. When did alot of righties (mostly neocons – but certainly not all) get all “just trust the gov’t”? What I always liked about the right was that they felt that citizens should never trust the gov’t – sort of the “trust but verify” attitude – to borrow. All that’s abandoned (unless it’s a dem, o course)? If Hussein or Padilla (I will conflate becasue I won’t pretend occupied countries have independant judiciaries) or any of these guys has done something for which there is evidence against, why wait so long to bring charges and convict? Why not convict them with appropriate sarfeguards from the judiciary? I understand that in many cases I cannot be privy to that evidence – but NO ONE from anywhere but the exec can be privy to any of this stuff?
2. Forget about the moralizing and all of that – isn’t this stupid politically for the US? I understand that right-wing politicians have to give some lip-service to the “we don’t care what the world thinks of us” nonsense for elections, but it’s kinda dumb. Should we at least try to swing opinion about us – especially in the ME? Even (well) rigged trials would be better than what we are doing now. Someone should be trying their best to get something that looks alot like due process done and done quickly. Get them in prison as convicted terrorists and not legally nebulous detainees or enemy combatants or any of that other shit.
I don’t think gov’t will ever check itself if the people stop even requesting they do so. History should make this plain.
What makes you think that’s what this is?
“What makes you think that’s what this is?”
It’s a pattern of behavior, and if I made it seem like it was unique to the right, I didn’t mean that. On the left, all one has to do is utter a few phrases about inequality and their words go unchallenged. I hate that attitude and prefer the skepticism that (usually) comes from those on the right.
That said, we have an executive that has acted in a unitary fashion in may ways with fewer reservations from neocons than I would have predicted. I think of the Iraqi judiciary as nothing but an arm of the US (and therefor the exec, obviously) – maybe I’m wrong about that. But the trend of claiming powers that the exec clearly does NOT have legally has been a hallmark of the past 6 years, and I think everyone should be alarmed by that IMO. Myabe it’s not US pressure that has made has made Hussein’s imprisonment look alot like what we’ve been doing – but it has the appearance of coming out of our playbook.
Don’t forget – if a Dem becomes POTUS they’re not going to give that power back – they’re just going to apply it differently. the populace has to push back against this trend of exec out-powering the other branches. It didn’t start with Bush but he’s far and away the most egregious offender.
Too bad we can’t draft Hussein, if he was a soldier the AP would be bringing the rope.
You know, you are on to something B Moe. In a similar (but opposite) vein, I bet the American public would go to a movie about a US-employed press stringer acting on behalf the enemy. It could be the successful Iraq war movie Hollywood has been itching to make.
Oh my, steve. Not the dreaded unitary fashion.
the populace has to push back against this trend of exec out-powering the other branches.
Yeah, that’s the argument congress tries to make while they subpoena the executive branch over hiring/firing decisions in the DOJ. And as they try to pass a bill saying Bush can’t take any military action against Iran without their prior approval. All to restore balance, you know. Because Bush is so unitary.
“Yeah, that’s the argument congress tries to make while they subpoena the executive branch over hiring/firing decisions in the DOJ.”
They shouldn’t have suppoena power over the exec? Regardless of if they were right or wrong, they DO have that power.
“And as they try to pass a bill saying Bush can’t take any military action against Iran without their prior approval. All to restore balance, you know. Because Bush is so unitary.”
But the constitution says that the POTUS cannot declare war. the only sad thing about this is that congress doesn’t need to do this. But they’re so busy giving away their responsibilities that it’s not surprising.
What about signing statements? What about detaining US citizens w/o due process? And John Yoo’s theories that the Bush admin had used as justification for some of these things – you have no problem with that? When they cite Yoo’s theories of exec power during war, then say the war is more or less interminable (or at the very least leave open that door for future admins) – that’s OK?
There’s no constitution that I recognize in any of that.
It’s a conundrum. The Constitution clearly states that only the United Nations can declare war, and yet Congress insists that they have a tangible if undefined role to play as well.
Bullshit, steve. I keep seeing this pop up, and I’m at a loss to understand where the f* it comes from.
Cast your mind back to T. Jefferson, so long ago, and the Louisiana Purchase. To give some perspective — suppose Bush decided to solve the Iran problem by buying the place, and wrote the mullahs a check for one and a half (roll that rr) trrrrillion dollars to pay for it — then basically told Pelosi to either fund it, or be known throughout the world as the biggest deadbeat ever. What would your view of Executive Powers be on that?
The Constitution — the real one, not the illusory document you moonbats seem to be referring to — is on line at several places, notably Emory University. Go have a look. There are several things the President is required to do; there are a number of things the President is allowed to do; but you will search in vain for language forbidding the President to do something, except in connection with blanket prohibitions against anybody in the Government. Contrast that with the long, long list of things the Congress is forbidden to do, including the first few Amendments.
When the form of Government for the United States was being debated there was a substantial Royalist fraction. Their concern was that a mere “President” would not have the sovereign power to do what was necessary — only a King could. The compromise reached was to have a King, but a temporary one; a King who had to run for re-election. We have since established a fixed limit on the time the King can hold office, but there is nothing in the Constitution that limits the powers of the President except as a part of Government whose powers are limited generally.
As for war-making — Jefferson again; he sent the Navy (John Paul Jones and that business) against the Barbary Pirates. Did he ask permission of Congress? Did he wait for a Declaration of War? It is to laugh. He sent the Navy, then told Congress to like it or lump it. The parallel should occur to you any moment now.
The only checks on the power of the President are election and impeachment. If you don’t like that, agitate for a Constitutional amendment. Blathering on about restrictions that do not exist and have never existed just makes you look like a fool.
Regards,
Ric
Steve- How did Congress vote when Clinton went to them for permission to begin bombing and missile strikes on Iraq and in the Sudan?
steve also seems intent on missing my point in posting on this topic, so allow me to state it in easily digested words.
The AP is covering a war in Iraq. The AP does not have employees that understand the language, let alone the culture of Iraq. Thus, the AP depends on stringers for much of its work. Yet, for the same reasons the AP hires stringers, the AP seems unable to properly vet its stringers. Bilal Hussein’s history is now fairly well-known. It is fairly obvious from his history that he harbors ill-will toward the US and takes staged photos of the enemy. Yet the AP has never cared about this, even form the standpoint of providing supposedly objective coverage of the war.
Now, the AP’s president attacks the US and Iraqi systems (and those who think the Iraqi system is not independent should be aware that a CBS stringer was acquitted in a prior case) — and the AP reports its president’s attack as a straight news story.
steve:
Is it a conflict of interest for the AP to report on this case? Particularly given Tom Curley’s vigorous attacks? Are AP reports on this case consistent with its stated policies, as quoted above? Does it matter to you that the news providers you rely on avoid conflicts of interest? Do you want to form your opinions of Iraq based on staged photographs of the enemy?
I hope considering these questions might cause you to consider that this case raises issues much larger than this case, and much larger than any issues surrounding the Iraqi judiciary.
The AP’s take on the matter is clearly suspect; they’re the only American chain after McClatchy which is this biased in favor of the insurgents (Wahhabi, Salafi or Sadrist. I come across the most extreme version of this
tendency in a new graphic novel” Shooting War’ which purports to show what liberals see as a possible dystopian end.A world where oil is at $8.00 a gallon, due to backwash from a
missile strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. By the way, McCain is president in this dystopian vision, and his son, Jimmy, has been captured
by insurgents in this bitterly fractured Iraq where a small group of remaining troops are fighting in the manner related in “Redacted”and “Valley
of Elah”; supplemented by robot gun platforms (ala ED-209) which (of course) gun down innocent civilians. An annoying Kosesque wannaby blogger is sent into this hellhole and proceeds to chronicle the (inevitable) disaster, becoming the voice for a particularly nasty jihadist leader; whose roots lie in the anti-globalist protest in Milan, 2001. An interesting ironic detail is that New YorkMagazine gave it a big write up; despite not having read the copy. although the portrayal of their reporter is well rhymes with “gore” and “witch”. Fox News and CNN comes in for abuse, presumably Olberman would be hiring this guy in an instant.
Locke is a perfect example of someone who has a half-assed idea of the constitution that is just smudgey enough to allow HIS politicians to do whatever they want and make it all seem ‘legal’. His notion that the POTUS is completely unbound by all but term limits is absurd. If you read the constition – as you cliam – you did not understand large portions of it. And I’m leaving aside the notion that somehow enumerated limitations of the legis somehow leaves the exec unlimited by the very laws of the Republic itself! Or that the US military defending themselves is somehow tantamount to a declaration of war, or that at the least we can use this in a fallacy of the beard manner to give the POTUS the de facto right to declare wars. Why does the constition even require legiclative apporval to go to war if this is the case? You understanding of the constitution as you’ve written is even farther off than Yoo et al’s, and makes the POTUS a King by your own admission. Read the Fed Papers for clarification as you have no real understanding how your own gov’t works.
Sorry to be so harsh, but this really is tripe.
Karl:
I should have clarified: I agree completely, I was just remarking on another facet of the story that I find more interesting. It is a conflict, and I wouldn’t really trust their reporting becasue of that – regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong.
just smudgey enough to allow HIS politicians to do whatever they want and make it all seem ‘legal’.
funny, because that’s how I see your defense of the subpoena use in the DOJ hiring/firing decisions. Congress may have subpoena power, but it is supposed to be used for legitimate legislative purpose.
Bullshit, steve. Like I said, read the damn document, rather than depending on your sense of how the Living Constitution® is supposed to go. Find the prohibitions on Presidential power. You won’t mind, I suppose, if I go do something else while you’re looking? I’ll check back in a couple of weeks.
FDR rounded up tens of thousands of American citizens and shoved them into internment camps; I happen to be personally acquainted with one who was so interned. It is definitely arguable that this should not have been done (I believe it myself). It cannot be argued that Roosevelt didn’t have the power to do that — he manifestly did, because he did it; it’s a fact of history. He also named people “enemy sympathizers” and tossed the in the slammer, even executed them, and neither the Congress nor the Courts said him nay. If you had told him or any of his contemporaries that he didn’t have the power to intercept the communications of entities hostile to the United States he would have laughed in your face, and probably locked you up.
There are a whole host of things I don’t think Presidents should do, and by and large they are things the President customarily doesn’t do — but custom and usage are not Law. The only choices the Congress has when the President orders something are to fund it or impeach. There have been gutless Presidents who, by inaction, left things up to the Congress or the Courts instead of doing the dirty work themselves, but again, none of that is Constitutional.
In fact, an amusing thought occurred to me the other day: Suppose Bush ordered the various departments of the Executive not to disburse the funds allocated by the so-called “earmarks”? There’s no doubt that he could, in that he has secretaries with word processors and printers on tap to print up the order and issue it, and there’s little if any doubt that many, if perhaps not all, agencies would obey the order — after all, if they don’t they can be punished, let alone most of their attitudes towards irregular funding directives in the first place. But would it be Constitutional? My reading says yes. YMMV (and no doubt does).
Regards,
Ric
steve – Given the existing choice, we are more likely to believe the military over the media, almost every damn time, and twice on Sundays.
The AP’s biggest frustration is that they don’t have access to the evidence the military is holding. There is also real fear:
Curley seems to be anticipating a difficult task for the defense. So far the information that has been released has been highly prejudicial, and the AP is right to decry that, lest their reputation be unfairly stained.
Ric – We could only dream of such a leader, with the spine and cojones to take such an action.
steve – happyfeet just pointed out a perfect example of the blatant and rampant arrogance of the media in trying to maintain their Narrative. No mention of Haditha in the media should be complete without the media and Murtha noting that they convicted the soldiers prior to any evidence, and that many if not all, have been cleared by actual investigation. Mendacity, thy name is steve.
“It cannot be argued that Roosevelt didn’t have the power to do that  he manifestly did, because he did it; it’s a fact of history”
I think its pretty much conventional opinion that the president doesn’t have this power, and the supreme court was wrong when they said he did.
“But would it be Constitutional? My reading says yes. YMMV (and no doubt does).”
What does it mean when the constitution says “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,”
Andy, you are totally highjacking this thread while the AP harbors terrorists and disseminates terrorist propaganda as we speak. We need you on the front lines, buddy.
Wishful thinking is not a substitute for argument, andy. Japanese Americans were interned at FDR’s order; it therefore follows that FDR had the power to order them interned. We can argue that he shouldn’t have (my position) or that he shouldn’t have had the power, but arguing that he didn’t have the power is like claiming this morning’s sunrise didn’t happen.
Aha. But is an earmark a “law”? It hasn’t been debated or voted on by the Congress; it’s simply stuck in at the whim of committee leaders, and the congressional committees are not Constitutional offices. The fireworks would be fun to watch, no?
Regards,
Ric
To add to Ric’s point, Americans tend to like a strong presence in the White House. Generally, Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, and the 2 Roosevelts are regarded as among the greatest Presidents. All of them were strong executives who, with the possible exception of Washington, were not averse to taking action in defiance of Congress and public opinion.
However, context is important and people are more willing to forgive FDR’s excesses in pursuit of fascism than they are Nixon’s in pursuit of his political enemies.
“. Japanese Americans were interned at FDR’s order; it therefore follows that FDR had the power to order them interned. ”
Schools used to be segregated by race, it does not therefore follow that states have the power to segregate by race. You see where I’m going with this, right?
“Aha. But is an earmark a “lawâ€Â? It hasn’t been debated or voted on by the Congress; it’s simply stuck in at the whim of committee leaders, and the congressional committees are not Constitutional offices.”
Are you an idiot? Earnmarks pass both houses of congress and are signed by the president. There is no requirement that it be debated. Only 2 things: pass both houses and presented to the president.
The fireworks would be funny. It would be like paultard carnival.
Racial segregation is wrong and Tom Curley and his Associated Press support terrorists, which also is wrong.
Until the Civil Rights Acts were passed, segregated schools did exist; we had them where I grew up. They were there. Arguing that some entity didn’t have the power to do what it manifestly did do is lunacy, andy. Was it “right” and/or “just”? Our answer today is no, but “make it didn’t happen” is not a foundation for rational lawmaking.
Implying that pork is earned makes that the funniest typo I’ve seen in a while, andy. Of course, knowing you, it could have been intentional.
Regards,
Ric
“Arguing that some entity didn’t have the power to do what it manifestly did do is lunacy, andy.”
So is arguing that because some entity HAD a power, it means they still have it. I don’t know if you think its because of living constitutions or what, but clearly since Brown vs. Board of Education states have not had the power to racially segregate schools. Not the civil rights act, but brown vs. board.
“Implying that pork is earned makes that the funniest typo I’ve seen in a while, andy. Of course, knowing you, it could have been intentional.”
Hey, lobbyists work hard for their money! But at least you realize that it is a law.
My brain is still reeling. andy, he of the perpetually dim-witted, had the audacity to call Ric “The Human Encyclopedia of Knowledge of All Things” Locke, an idiot? Mother Earth just started spinning counter-clockwise. If there was ever a greater example of unintended irony, I have never seen it.
“My brain is still reeling. andy, he of the perpetually dim-witted, had the audacity to call Ric “The Human Encyclopedia of Knowledge of All Things†Locke, an idiot?”
I asked if he was an idiot. Mr encyclopedia doesn’t seem to know how congress authorizes spending money. You may be fine with argument by authority. Mr. Ric isn’t so sure, so maybe he’s reading his constitution again. Try it.
I love the troops.
So, passive-aggressive-boy is going to use the “it was only a question” defense. Ric and every other commenter here, RMN and bluetexan excepted obviously, have forgotten more about the Constitution than you have ever, or will ever know.
I like the Three Stooges. Larry (Johnson), Mo (hammed) and Curley have been providing a lot of entertainment over the past several years.
JD – do you know what mendacity means?
Ric holds the same view of the constitution that many hold as of late – it’s really quite sad. The President is a temporary King that may do as he/she wishes on a whim – and I write that not as some sarcastic straw man but as a summary of his own words.
Ric is an authoritarian. Unfortunately for him, the constitution provides that the President DOES have to follow the law. If you read the constitution and come away thinking otherwise i don’t know what to tell you. Good luck in all your endeavors, I suppose: you’ll need it.
“Ric and every other commenter here, RMN and bluetexan excepted obviously, have forgotten more about the Constitution than you have ever, or will ever know.”
What do you say? Are earmarks passed as a law and presented for the president’s signature or not?
Bush is benevolent and wise, so mostly it works for me.
Steve- How did Congress vote when Clinton went to them for permission to begin bombing and missile strikes on Iraq and in the Sudan?
steve- the reason I asked this is because I’m pretty sure (though happy to be corrected) that Clinton did not get Congress’s permission to bomb Iraq or send missiles to the Sudan.
Was that unconstitutional? Was it unitary?
“steve- the reason I asked this is because I’m pretty sure (though happy to be corrected) that Clinton did not get Congress’s permission to bomb Iraq or send missiles to the Sudan.
Was that unconstitutional? Was it unitary?”
My guess would be that clinton was acting under the War Powers Act.
This is all I can find, maggie…
US Strikes Iraq For Plot To Kill Bush
That’s the only mention of Congress I think in the Washington Post’s next day lead story.
I meant MayBee I mean.
You can call me maggie anytime. I love maggie!
Anyway, thanks ‘feets. I’m just wondering how that fits in with the idea that Congress would not be making a power grab with the Webb thingie- an attempt to pass a law prohibiting Bush from acting militarily against Iran. Steve told me that a President couldn’t do such a thing anyway. It would be way too unitary.
Also, Dole was a classy guy. Almost incomprehensibly classy, these days.
May Bee – You see, Clinton was operating under the War Powers Act. Bush, not so much. This is easy.
steve – Yes, I do, and in my dictionary, your picture is located right next to it.
andy – Tool.
“andy – Tool.”
You really dont know? law or not? its kind of simple. You can even ask ric.
Technically, yes a law. A bastardization of the process. An abomination to democratic government. The worst kind of political tool available to the pols, who simply cannot resist. But yes, if being a law only means it was voted for in both chambers, then yes, a law. I would argue that any earmarks submitted by a Senator fully violate the Constitution, and could easily be banned. But a law, douchebag, yeah.
You really are a fuckstick, no?
Thanks happy and JD. I should have known how easy the answer was by the way Steve didn’t answer me.
Actually, andy, there is quite a bit of controversy concerning whether the War Powers Resolution/Act is even constitutional. Being a co-equal branch of government the legislative branch may not restrict the constitutional powers of the executive branch. And the War Powers Resolution/Act was never signed by any President; it was passed over Nixon’s veto in 1973. In fact, every President since and including Nixon has considered it an unconstitutional restriction on the powers of the office, even as they mostly complied with its provisions.
“I would argue that any earmarks submitted by a Senator fully violate the Constitution”
How would you argue it, given the part where the constitution says it just needs to pass both houses and the president. All that gnashing of teeth about how it bastardizes the process doens’t really get constitutional, as the constitution doesn’t really intrude much on the legislative process.
Pop Quiz
Who said this: “Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.”
“Being a co-equal branch of government the legislative branch may not restrict the constitutional powers of the executive branch”
Nor may it delegate its power to declare war. Nobody challenged clinton, but i suspect this is how he was operating.
“And the War Powers Resolution/Act was never signed by any President; it was passed over Nixon’s veto in 1973. ”
It may be unconstitutional, but this cannot be a reason.
No, but he refused to sign because he considered it an unconstitutional restriction on the powers of the President.
andy – Are you a supporter of earmarks, or do you recognize that the gnashing of the teeth is well-founded? If the earmarks are so important, why are they not submitted to the legislative process like everything else? Why not debate them in committee, or on the floor? Why not have them open to public scrutiny?
Again, tool.
Never mind all those restrictions on Congressional power in the Constitution and all those “Congress shall make no law”s in the Bill of Rights. All of them are rendered moot by the Commerce Clause which gives Congress the power to regulate all commerce, not just interstate. And, since everything is commerce, well…
We’ve been through this with andy before.
Then andy, I suggest that you and your Dem buddies march right over to the Supreme Court and ask them to declare President Bush’s Folly unconstitutional, post haste.
B Moe – Paul Begala. Had to have been a Clintonista.
“andy – Are you a supporter of earmarks, or do you recognize that the gnashing of the teeth is well-founded? ”
I think they’re clearly laws passed by the constitution. No gnashing of teeth changes that. As to gnashing of teeth I generally take the view of a ,a href=”http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/06/porkbusters_busted.php”>Pajamas Media contributor on them. Not much to get worked up over. Sure, put them online and track who inserted what (I’ve always wished that laws came with track changes on so we could see who did what) so that people can find out how well their Congressmen deliver. But debating line items in spending? Please.
“Never mind all those restrictions on Congressional power in the Constitution and all those “Congress shall make no lawâ€Âs in the Bill of Rights.”
Legislative results, yes. Process? Not much. Some bills have to originate in the house. But there are no requirements as to rules, committees, whether these people even have to read what they’re voting on, etc…
“Then andy, I suggest that you and your Dem buddies march right over to the Supreme Court and ask them to declare President Bush’s Folly unconstitutional, post haste.”
Which one?
Ric at #23:
That wouldn’t be JPJ – that would have been a number of half-hearted commodores, until Tom Jefferson found Edward Preble. Then Tripoli howled – and it howled worse when William Eaton led his motley army army (including Lt. Presley O’Bannon and his Marines – hence the Mameluke blade as the Marine Officer’s sword) across the desert to seize the city of Derna.
Unfortunately, the State Department had its way then – but after the War of 1812 Decatur and Bainbridge led squadrons over to the Barabary Coast to insist on peace without tribute.*
*And an Anglo-Dutch Force post the French Revolutionary-Republican-Imperial Wars came by to point out that the concept went for every one.
Tribute is for chumps.
Why in the hell would I expect andy to answer a question. Are you in favor of earmarks – yes or no?
“Why in the hell would I expect andy to answer a question. Are you in favor of earmarks – yes or no?”
It depends on the earmark. I’m sure for most of them there is something I’d rather spend the money on. In an earmark.
AP doesn’t have any evidence of his wrongdoing? It’s in your own f***ing archives, you ninnys!
Unless, AP doesn’t actually see any of that as wrongdoing? “Once, twice, twelve times “just on scene” for an execution or beheading – hey, he’s lucky like that!”
Sorry- I missed this before:
“steve- the reason I asked this is because I’m pretty sure (though happy to be corrected) that Clinton did not get Congress’s permission to bomb Iraq or send missiles to the Sudan.
Was that unconstitutional? Was it unitary?”
Iraq I’m not sure on becasue there may have been conditions from the initial military action that made this OK by anyone’s standards. In Sudan I do not belive that our military was attacked or congressional approval was sought – if these are true, than I do belive it was unconstitutional and the only difference between Clinton and Bush is degree.
this has been a trend since WWII – and i think it’s wrong. The POTUS was not meant to have these powers via using some other term besides ‘war’. Clinton et al. besides Bush have engaged in other behavior like signing statements that are clearly unconstitutional as well. Bush has just gone hog wild with all of it.
But when it’s ‘our team’ or ‘our guy’ doing it, it’s OK. And that’s why the trend of greater power being vested in the exec than is constitutionally mandated has been as it’s been since Roosevelt.
steve – What terms of the original cease fire was Saddam meeting while President Bush was in office?
Your feigned, everybody has does it, but Bush has gone hog wild with it is ridiculous.
Someone said war powers act for Sudan, which may have been the case. I won’t get into the constitutionality of THAT (it might require an amendment by any reasonable interpretaion, yet there it is…).
Was it more than 60 days? I’m not really sure.
andy – Thank you for living down to my expectations. That was quite a challenge that you failed to even come close to.
“andy – Thank you for living down to my expectations. That was quite a challenge that you failed to even come close to.”
Whats the problem? If I support some but not others, that doesn’t answer your question?
I think the AP is just worried about finding another Brown person to take photographs for them in Iraq. Apparently there is a shortage according to the left and the media because we have killed them all. I can now see why Curley would be upset at the prospect of one of his undead employees remaining in jail any longer than necessary.
I’m feigned? What does that mean?
Congresss did vote for AUMF, which is de facto tantamount to a dec of war. I mean that Bush has usurped more exec power than anyone. More signing statements, claiming to be above Habeas, claiming to be above the 4th and FISA, etc.
I will say this: Bush does not pretend to be skirting these laws – he’s very open, through his lawyers, that he is bound by no law or branch of gov’t during war. That’s not my opinion – read his lawyers (like Yoo’s) reasoning. It’s frightening.
steve – AUMF’s are merely a convenience so that we don’t have to amend all our treaties. It is a misconception of the left that a declaration of war has to be formally called a declaration of war.
Jeepers, everybody! Andy/Actus/Monkiboi/whatever doesn’t have anything to say because when it does it comes up with the most assinine things ever seen since the age of discovery! Balloon Fences! Container Ship Armies! Mile High Dirt Berms! If I didn’t knoe better I’d bet he was the imbecile (and not a Persian mullah) that came up with the idea that rays from womens’ hair would drive men insane with lust!
Ignore the twit already!
Actually, andy, a simple yes or no would have done quite nicely. But, we can assume that you are in favor of earmarks, as long as they benefit you.
Yeah Daley, and I said:
“Congresss did vote for AUMF, which is de facto tantamount to a dec of war. “
Not according to the Dems, steve. Kerry voted for the threat of going to war, not actually going to war.
Simply asserting that President Bush has abused these powers is not really proof of that. But, we have seen these arguments before.
Since the unitary executive is all about cracking down on dissent, ironic that you can so freely and openly criticize the unitary executvie.
Actually, JD, I’m in favor of any earmarks that would benefit me – and if any congresspersons want to throw a little federal corruption my way, the acoount numbe……
Damn that conscience.
“Actually, andy, a simple yes or no would have done quite nicely. But, we can assume that you are in favor of earmarks, as long as they benefit you.”
I’m in favor of the ones i like. I add that I am also in favor of several reforms promoted by the anti-earmarks crowd, such as increasing transparency and letting us know who is responsible for what changes in what bills. Having watched bills move via cspan, it would be real nice if we could see this real time. And not just on spending.
I dont think its a good idea to remove from Congress the ability to make line item spending, and I think it would be unconstitutional to have a line item veto. I also don’t think that in the picture that is the federal budget, they’re that big of a deal.
“Not according to the Dems, steve. Kerry voted for the threat of going to war, not actually going to war.”
Who said anything about Kerry? I said that the War in Iraq was OKed legislatively and was not an example of Bush stripping power.
“Simply asserting that President Bush has abused these powers is not really proof of that. But, we have seen these arguments before.”
What? I said signing statements, illegal wire tapping, ignoring Habeas, and the contentions of his lawyers that he has authority to do all of these were the examples.
“Since the unitary executive is all about cracking down on dissent”
This is simply false. It’s about alot more than that.
“ironic that you can so freely and openly criticize the unitary executvie.”
MOST of my civil liberties are intact – I’ve never stated anything to the contrary . I’m not happy with most of the civil liberties I should have. I’m the greedy sort that wants them all.
What civil rights of YOURS, specifically, have been violated?
And, you asserted all of the above have been trampled to a far greater extent, I think your actual term was hog wild, than any other President. That is an assertion. A flawed opinion at best. It takes more than declaring your opinions as facts.
We await your response, steve. I am interested to see which of your civil rights have been denied you.
See also: tautology.
For all the ignoring of Habaes Corpus going on a heck of a lot of citizens seem to end up in front of a judge. Even Mr. Padilla got to be heard in court.
Mikey NTH – The leftists do really well at trotting these types of memes out there, but go strangely silent when asked to show their work.
if these are true, than I do belive it was unconstitutional and the only difference between Clinton and Bush is degree.
Degree? You mean Bush hasn’t performed any military action without Congressional approval, but Clinton did– right? Advantage Bush.
Having said that, considering the precedent you acknowledge, who is trying to assert MORE power than they are currently considered to have with the Webb bill? Congress.
Clinton et al. besides Bush have engaged in other behavior like signing statements that are clearly unconstitutional as well. Bush has just gone hog wild with all of it.
Is there a particular signing statement or number of signing statements you think qualifies as ‘hog wild’? As for FISA, considering that it didn’t even exist before 1978, it’s a little tough to declare Bush is worse than any other president because he’s testing its limits. That’s a whole lot of beloved Presidents that had no limits.
But when it’s ‘our team’ or ‘our guy’ doing it, it’s OK. And that’s why the trend of greater power being vested in the exec than is constitutionally mandated has been as it’s been since Roosevelt.
Actually, it isn’t so much that it’s ‘our guy’ trying to increase the power of the executive, it’s that we have to watch Congress and the Executive Branch (and occasionally the judicial branch) try to duke it out over who gets to be most powerful. Who are you gonna root for? Never believe Congress when they act like they are just trying to restore “balance” to the three branches. Remember the whole recent DoJ controversy got started because Pelosi tried to change it so that rather than the Executive branch selecting interim USAs, the judges in the districts would do it. When that blew up, it became an “oversight” issue. heh.
One of my favorite movies is Wag the Dog. Though I think Monica being portrayed as a Sunflower Girl is a stretch.
While happyfeet is away, I’m trying to fill in.
So al, you’re trying to fill the happyfeet of happyfeet?
Ok, I hate myself.
Why is nuance lost on leftist commentators? Did they not provide him with a loving, nurturing home, give him organic food and buy him earth friendly presents on his birthday? Has he hitchhiked to Texas only to run into a Code Pink waterboarding demonstration that caused it to have a seizure?
Why do progressives shun the nuance? The Narrative?™
“Perhaps it is not surprising that the operators of the world’s largest prison-camp network have found a way to provide access to due process in a form that actually looks more unjust than indefinite imprisonment without charges.”
BTW, we just got The Prison Camp Network on DirecTV and the cooking shows are off the hook! You had better TiVo this week’s episode. They’re doing marinated Koran Kabobs.
I’m gonna have to disagree with Ric’s assessment of Presidential Powers. I don’t see that it follows that just because President X does Y that it is Constitutional for X to do Y. Y’s unconstitutionality does not depend on the courage of congress or the Courts to call him on it.
Example: Lincoln putting the Maryland legislature in jail in 1861. Suspending Habeus Corpus absent emergency legislation authorizing such, which did not happen until December of that year. Congress did fuckall about it, and so did the courts, because there was bigger business at hand. After the war, the Courts said “gee whiz, ya shouldn’t oughta done that,” which has been more or less the rule ever since. Likewise, FDR’s internment, Jim Crow, etc. all decided by subsequent judicial interpretation to have been unconstitutional. That’s kind of why we have a judiciary.
What does this mean regarding our current dizzy state of affairs? Not much. FDR’s one action that has not been subsequently overturned was his execution of German saboteurs, more or less without trial, in 1942. The Supremes heard the case and decided in favor of Roosevelt, as I remember it. This means pretty clearly to me that hostile foreign saboteurs (read “terrorists”) have zero rights whatsoever. The current court may change its mind, but that does not make Bush the Evil Toad Monster of Fascism that he’s portrayed. It means he’s pushing the powers of his office to do his duties as he sees them, until Congress or the Courts, each according to their powers, tell him to stop.
What Jefferson got away with re: the Pirates of Bar-Bary, what FDR got away with re: Japanese-Americans and German saboteurs =/= what passes Constitutional muster. However, it does possess value as precedent, and those who argue against it’s constitutionality need to argue exactly what provisions of the Constitution it violates, and why.
I’m not coming from a swishy Living Constitution perspective here. I likes my constitutions dead and dry. The problem is, there’s a level of vagueness in certain areas that requires interpretation. This interpretation should be done according to precedent and original intent, so we know what the damn thing says and whether we want to change it. But it does need to be done.
I’m not entirely satisfied with judicial interpretation up to the present time. I believe it’s been entirely too political and trendy. I could not disagree more with O.W. Holmes, who believed it was his job to give the citizens whatever rights they demanded. That is manifestly NOT his job. His job is to interpret from on high. If you want to call that authoritarian, I say “duh”. Missed the meaning of the robes, did ya? Our federal government is a mixture of popular, monarchial, and aristocratic authority. This is shocking, even unpleasant if you’re of a certain bent, but true.
Assail at will.
I do not think that Ric was arguing about the constitutionality of any of the aforementioned Exec actions, just that they did have the power to do so. He speficially avoided the question of whether or not they should have been done, whether it was right to do so, and whether or not it ran afoul of the Constitution. He was simply making the point that the Constitution places great and specific limits on the Legislature, which they proceed to ignore at will, while not doing so for the Exec.
Sorry, JD, no dice. When we’re talking “powers” in terms of exective and legislative and judicial powers, we’re talking about “things that this particular branch of government is empowered to do by the Constitution.”
Ric’s point that the Executive has few explicit limits on his power is well-taken. But there’s a flip-side: He has few specific powers allocated to him. He’s the Commander-in-Chief, but what proceeds from that, and what doesn’t?
Jefferson probably got away with smacking the Pirates because they were not a sovreign state but a mass of criminals who were benignly ignored by their nominal Ottoman Rulers. You cannot declare war on pirates, nor even on Piracy. You simply send in the Navy and start killing them until they get the message.
We have a slightly different situation today, as we have hostile states engaging in proxy war against us by funding terrorist groups. Despite 9/11, we have never reached real consensus about what to do regarding this, so Bush has had to make the case against each sovreign state individually, yet somehow connect it all back to 9/11. The result is a rhetorical fireworks show (“Sixteen Words OMG”) that is entirely disconnected from reality. Saddam was our enemy and needed to go. The Taliban was our enemy and needed to go. The Ayatollah is our enemy and needs to go. Assad is our enemy and needs to go. The House of Saud is…a mystery wrapped in an enigma and probably should go. Musharraf is a useless dunderhead and will lead to all kinds of problems when he goes, which will give us a resurgent Taliban that will need to go.
Arguing Bush’s follies is instructive only if you can bring yourself to say that Terrorists Need to Be Killed, and then point out the Better Jihadi-Trap of which you are the sole proprietor. Whining about Creating More Terrorists and Muscley Manly Diplomacy is making a silk purse out of a white flag, as far as I’m concerned.
You think Iraq represents a screwed pooch? I disagree, but you’re entitled to your opinion. So what’s the new plan? How do we get all the bad guys? And then Congress can set policy, and the President can enact it, and we can relax about the stretching powers of the feddle gummint since those powers are going to be arrayed against, forgive me, foreigners who have declared war on us.
You will also gain the double-secret bonus of having Democrats who are taken seriously on national security. Which I, as a Republican, am all in favor for. Politics ought to stop at the water’s edge.
Incidentally, I was addressing my “You think Iraq is a…” comments to my Democrat Strawman, not to JD.
Andrew – I was speaking of the traditional meaning of power, as opposed to empower. The differences in definitions of those two words would lead to drastically different interpretations of what is and is not allowed under the Constitution.
I would imagine that much of what the federal government does today runs afoul of what the Founders would have envisioned. I have always viewed the Constitution as laying out the things government CAN do, and the Bill of Rights being a document to limit the government, by stating what they cannot do.
The bastardization of the Commerce Clause and the common good notion has made federal intervention de riguer in practically every aspect of life. So much for that clause about powers not granted the federal government, nor denied the States, are exclusively those of the State.
Andrew – I doubt that our positions are very far apart.
Let’s not forget the judiciary in our empowering complaints. While bushitler “shreds the bill of rights!!!” the Supreme Court (and the judiciary as a whole) gave us Kelo, one of the most chilling individual and property rights decisions in US History.
While leftists get their panties all bunched up over the supposedly Bush/Cheney crushed civil liberties the judiciary is providing a fast track for communities to take property away merely for the pleasure of a higher tax base. FOR THE CHILDRENSES!!!
Please, waterboard somebody and wiretap inernational calls without a warrant! Just leave my property rights alone!
Property taxes. Don’t even get me started on property taxes. I purchase a small truck for our County every year with my taxes alone.
JD- as to your notions of the bastardization of the commerce clause and the bloated size of our feddle gummint, I have no beef.
Wars tend to grow governments, but peace tends to keep them large.
Andrew – Does that mean you have a beef with everything else?
No, I was just emphasizing that.
“Wars tend to grow governments, but peace tends to keep them large.”
Andrew, could you have the government grow Camp Funston at Fort Riley a bit larger? When peace comes, I swear I’ll back in trying to get it trimmed back. But for now, I wouldn’t mind more facilities for this mobilization training…
Thanks! Heh.
Major John – You are in our prayers.
Major, if’n I was in charge, the gummint would be involved in few things beyond turning Fort Riley into the Gibraltar of Kansas.
A nice interstate highway to get there, maybe, too.