The journey from there to here
Published on March 10, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

George Bush is once famously quoted as saying that the US would be easier to govern as a dictatorship if he were the dictator. While I've never heard this quote directly, I have often heard it attributed to him (mostly by critics).

He appears to have taken steps to make the US easier to govern over the years. Operating with a solid base of UnConstitutional legislation from his predecessor, Bush used the tragedy of September 11, 2001 to further erode our rights and remove our government further from that which was intended.

He looked to history for lessons on how to do this. Apparently, he noted that Abraham Lincoln's use of war to justify shredding the Constitution had gone unchallenged for over a decade and a third, and decided that would make for sound strategy on the part of his administration. By declaring "war on terror" (invoking the rhetoric used by Reagan of the war on drugs and earlier by Johnson of the war on poverty), he declared an open ended war that could not possibly be won against an enemy that could not possibly be singled out, so that any action against any individual could possibly be construed as an action in the war on terror. This rhetoric was invoked when my van was searched without a warrant in 2003 because I committed the heinous crime of occupying it while parked on a public street, and I have no doubt it has been invoked on many others in similar situations.

Bush's violations of the Constitution under the assumed war powers granted by his unilateral (and UnConstitutional) declaration of a war on terror echoed Reagan in one substantial way: just as Reagan's war on drugs brought about the policy of asset seizure in direct defiance of the Constitutional protection requiring due process, Bush's war on terror brought about the same policies, adding to it the right to arrest and detain individuals indefinitely without the benefit of a trial or even of families knowing they have been seized. How many mothers in the middle east are going to sleep not knowing if their son is dead, lost, or locked away in some prison or forgotten due to the crime of simply having been a Muslim Arab in a war zone, or a Muslim Arab in America? The truth is, there may be none who fit that description, but until/unless the records are made available to the proper personnel, we will never know that for a fact, will we? Ironic, isn't it, that the same American public who demands that a parent who refuses to open their home to an UnConstitutional search by government agents is "hiding something" would accept the fact that a PUBLIC SERVANT refusing to release certain pertinent details of the actions of the US government is not?

Bush has further insisted that simply questioning his activities is treasonous, and many of the GOP faithful have accepted that maxim entirely. But, while concluding that illegal activities have taken place and taking action on that assumption may indeed constitute treason in certain situations, the mere questioning of the activities of the government certainly does not. The first amendment specifically enumerates our right to petition the government for redress of grievances; how, then, may we do so if we cannot ask questions of our government?

Bush's closing of the White House to public tours is another issue. The White House is OUR house, as citizens. We own it, we maintain it, and we have a right to access it. The Constitution specifically forbids titles of nobility, and that ban extends all the way up to the President. There IS a way to secure the tours to the White House, and it would not be unreasonable to require two weeks' notice before a tour may be secured, so that background checks may be completed and that security may be provided, but the White House MUST be reopened to the public. It is OUR property, NOT that of the President, and that should be remembered.

The "war on poverty", the "war on drugs", and the "war on terror" all need to be brought to a conclusion with the same ax. All are spurious excuses for exceeding the authority of the executive branch of government, and all are unConstitutional because they are "wars" that are completely unwinnable, that have no defined enemy, and that have employed unConstitutional actions of all three branches of the federal government in their implementation.

While Republicans (and some Democrats) may refuse to accept it, there IS a case for impeachment of the President that could be made. But the same case could be made of both Democrat and Republican presidents going back to Lincoln and of many presidents that predated Lincoln. The answer, then, is not to suggest impeachment of Bush as a remedy, but to restore democracy one initiative, one candidate at a time. To do that, we must first educate ourselves as to the rights we are guaranteed (NOT GIVEN) under the United States Constitution, and of our state Constitutions, and as to the limitations placed on the governments therein. We must then USE that education to vote out enemies to democracy and vote in those who would restore it. It's a long process, certainly, but if we are dedicated enough we can do it.


Comments
on Mar 10, 2006
George Bush is once famously quoted as saying that the US would be easier to govern as a dictatorship if he were the dictator. While I've never heard this quote directly, I have often heard it attributed to him (mostly by critics).


I've heard it. If I can get a copy I'll post it.

on Mar 10, 2006
Here ya go: MP3   WAV

on Mar 10, 2006
Thanks, Gene. I was careful not to rely too heavily on it because I didn't want to be accused of making accusations out of thin air
on Mar 12, 2006
omg lol!... Bush is funny
on Mar 12, 2006
Bush speechalist: i came across this... pretty funny

on Mar 12, 2006
Tomorrow Russ Feingold (D-WI) will introduce a resolution to censure the President for the wiretapping program;

Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) announced that he will introduce a resolution tomorrow to censure President Bush for authorizing an illegal warrantless domestic surveillance program. Feingold said President Bush’s actions were “right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors.”Link
on Mar 13, 2006
Note that Bush claims his actions are entirely constitutional, entailed directly from the responsibilities imposed on him by the Constitution.

The most you can honestly say is that the question is ambiguous and controversial, and that different experts--often with their own partisan bias--are arguing for different and conflicting interpretations.
on Mar 15, 2006
What is the point if "everyone does it"? I guess all presidents get tipsy with the arrogance of power. I wouldn't, however, equate the war on poverty with the war on terror, rather Johnson's war on Vietnam. Let's hope for an intelligent electorate which does not go astray with spurious "moral" issues--particularly "single issue" voters.
on Mar 15, 2006
If it was black and white they'd be using the courts, not some esoteric measure to shake a finger at Bush. It SEEMS black and white because they characterize this as people listening in on your phone conversations 24/7, and that makes people angry. Most people don't realize that they'd have to be calling out of the US, and to the phones of suspected terrorists.

It is nice to see Gideon displaying some of the Libertarian party's more unsavory views, though. They don't often like to talk about such when they want to be elected to office, and those views are why they rarely, if ever, get elected. Finding people who are against government help for the poor, against the war on terror, who are pro-drug legalization, and all the rest is like finding a natural redhead in China...
on Mar 15, 2006

Most people don't realize that they'd have to be calling out of the US, and to the phones of suspected terrorists.

That is the "official" statement of the Bush administration, Baker, and while I want to believe it, the fact is, we do not have access to the information to verify whether this is true or not. The fact that Bush backtracked to admit as much as he has makes me suspicious.

I didn't include the information because I haven't seen independent verification of it, but there are allegations that the wiretaps have included Quaker groups within the United States, hardly a group that could be considered to have links to terror.

The fact is, though, it didn't start with Bush or the NSA. Do you really feel that the government should have the right to seize all assets of a person accused of drug possession but never criminally convicted? It HAS happened in different jurisdictions across the United States, Baker. There have been several news stories about seizures like this in the state of Louisiana over the years. Regardless of how we feel about drugs, it makes little to no sense to use our opposition to drugs as a right to completely destroy someone's life and forfeit their assets to the state.

The same could be said about the unConstitutional authority given CPS in many states. Families routinely lose their children simply because of poverty and/or ignorance, and entirely without due process. As with drugs, families are usually presumed guilty until proven innocent, and databases are being established to track families from state to state on the mere SUSPICION of abuse. The convenience of anonymous reporting allows someone to make all manner of claims against another person with no repercussions against themselves whatsoever. I have met the burden of proof to establish this as fact, as well as the Constitutional violations that routinely take place.

While I believe it is wrong to continually lobby false allegations against this administration simply because of one's political leanings, it is an even GREATER wrong to suggest that, because Bush is President, that is a position that puts him above scrutiny. The fact is, there are things that NEED to be fixed, and NEED to be fixed desperately and IMMEDIATELY, and that can't come about unless we have the freedom to question.

I am against government help for the poor, Baker, but for a reason. Because that's NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB! If we expect the government to underwrite every pet project of ours, it stands to reason it will only continue to get larger until it is either completely unmanageable and we have become a socialist state. Heck, even the GOP USED to favor a small government.

Calling me "against the war on terror" is a nice sound bite and a nice talking point, Baker, and  I congratulate you for it. But it is intellectually dishonest, and as such, is FAR beneath you. I am not against working to fight terror, but our enemy must be clearly defined and our investigations must be within the law. What we have at present is the fact that those charged with enforcing the law are those currently engaged in BREAKING the very laws they are charged to enforce. The fact is, I currently have to stand vigil at the base of the stairs to the children's section of the library, and my children have to carry cards on them at all times demanding that they have a lawyer present before questioning because of the unConstitutional actions of CPS, and knowing that fact, I don't find it unreasonable to assume the same unConstitutional acts are going on in the war on terror.

Add to this the fact that Bush wants no sunset clause on the US Patriot Act and that is in itself suspicious. A war has a clearly defined enemy and a clearly defined and realistic objective. Ours has neither. "Terror" has been determined to be anything from al Qaeda operatives to simple protestors (first amendment, anyone?). Our "objective" is to eliminate terror from the face of the earth, which could arguably be construed as the complete elimination of all violent crime. Guess what? That will never happen, much as we'd like it. Do you feel the Bill of Rights was written on a whim, Baker? Were the Bill of Rights meant to have a sunset clause, or did Patrick Henry truly MEAN what he said when he said "Give me Liberty or give me Death!"?

As for the drug legalization argument, Baker, it is again a matter of two sets of justice. A great current example is Dwight Gooden, the former baseball great, who is currently sitting in jail on violation of probation, despite the fact that many without his financial means would have been locked up for life years ago. A friend of mine from childhood came up against this a few years back on Oklahoma's "three strikes" law: he had never been convicted of anything more than possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, but his third conviction had to be pled down to keep him from spending the rest of his natural life in jail. While there's a tendency not to sympathize with him (and I would agree, he proceeded knowing the consequences, especially after his first conviction), the question must be asked why we are a society that deems it acceptable to let child rapists walk while we incarcerate potheads for life?

The fact is, Baker, your own party used to champion smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Now, the GOP has begun championing BIGGER government and more government programs (which require increased taxation to fund). I would LOVE to be able to go down and change my affiliation to what the Republican party USED to be. But the fact is, the Republican party ISN'T that anymore, and it won't be until/unless the "old line" Republicans start holding their own leadership accountable.

 

on Mar 15, 2006
"That is the "official" statement of the Bush administration, Baker, and while I want to believe it, the fact is, we do not have access to the information to verify whether this is true or not. The fact that Bush backtracked to admit as much as he has makes me suspicious."


You're losing track of what needs to be done with this information. When an American is dragged into court, and the evidence is an illegally obtained, they can't hide it. When the judge says "where did you get this?" and they say "we tapped his phone". If you are asking for a publicly published book on how the intelligence community does their job, well, I think that'd be counter productive, wouldn't you?

We make these laws, and they have to abide by them. They have a lot of power, sure, and the nature of their work prevents us from being able to watch them night and day. I'm not sure exactly what you want other than what we can do. Courts will have to decide if we have to hang up every time a terrorist calls an American. I think that would be heinous, though, given attacks in America are exactly what we are trying to prevent.

I agree with many of your beliefs, Gideon, and differ with many others. The reason I can't follow a Libertarian stance is because it bases tangible, situational ideals on an esoteric philosopy of "hands off". You come to a situation wherein you have to make a decision that effects the lives of millions of people, and you have to consult the slide rule of Libertarian ethos to decide what is right, not the needs and effects.

There are times when the government has to step in. I can't trust Libertarians for that reason. I am all for smaller government, and I oppose social welfare handouts for those who don't deserve them. On the other hand I can't see turning our streets over to drug dealers simply because my ethos states the government shouldn't tell the drug dealers what they can and can't do.
on Mar 16, 2006
On the other hand I can't see turning our streets over to drug dealers simply because my ethos states the government shouldn't tell the drug dealers what they can and can't do.


And that is why I stop at decriminalization rather than legalization, Baker. I have always stated that there are two types of dealers I can't stand: pushers and those who sell to children. We can and should have remedies for these types of individuals while creating laws that don't penalize someone who uses recreationally in ways that harm noone but themself.