Editorialized USA Today article
When most American schools are returning from a 3-month recess, Congress is skipping town for the entire month of August. Even Pres. Bush, notorious for taking long vacations, is only resting for 10 days. Why does Congress need a whole month in a year of unresolved issues facing this nation?
According to the USA Today "the House of Representatives is on track to be in session this year for the fewest days since 1948". Alarming? It seems that loss of productivity is not just an economic issue.
Republican majority leaders have wasted away scarce time on frivolous issues like repealing the estate tax (beneficial for the rich), constitutional amendments on gay marriage and flag burning? Have we created a monster in that Congress cannot find a way to endorse the issues that affect MOST Americans? We should have all grown accustomed to this dubious Republican political strategem, in fact in a year of fierce Congressional elections, we have all earned master's degrees when it comes to recognizing this heavy, polluted political machinery boasted by Republicans.
Seriously, voters that are comforted by the idea of giving medals to their incumbents this year, should consider the following unresolved and pressing issues:
Immigration: Even when a bipartisan majority supports border security and humane treatment for the 12 million immigrants illegally in this country, House Republicans are fixed in blocking any compromise with the Senate. Shame on you!
Iraq: For the 130,000 + US troops currently in Iraq, shifting military policy operations can be dangerous, as the new priority for US ground troops will be avoiding an all-out civil war by securing Badgad instead of focusing completely on insurgent violance. Nonetheless, this policy shift, though immiment and necessary, has not been updated and authorized by our "busy" Congress.
Terror detainees: Even tough Bush's plans to create tribunals for detainees were slapped down by the highest court on the land; Congress, responsible for setting up a lawful process for trying these detainees, has not even visited the issue, upsetting the already delicate situation for more than 400 detainees held without trials in Guantanamo and contributing to the deplorable condition of our human rights record.
Minimum wage: It's been long overdue and yet Republicans have been holding down the debate of increasing the already depreciated minimum wage, even when accounting for inflation it's equivalent to the minimum wage after the World War II. Not surprisingly they are 'reconsidering' their positions only if Democrats agreed to pass legislation that would eliminate the estate tax. Like the USA Today stated: "When Congress returns, it should give America's poorest workers a raise and forget about giving its wealthiest heirs a fat tax break". Dream on.
Budget 2007: One thing Congress must do each year is pass the annual spending bills that fund everything from the space program to Medicaid, yet the Senate has only produced one of the 11 appropriation bills due at the end of September. Our fiscal year starts October 1. Can Congress pull this one off when we already have a $300 + billion dollars deficit? If not, it will be the first time Congress fails to measure up.
June 28, 2006
June 24, 2006
The Addiction to Oil: Hidden Consequences
After watching the movie Syriana for the second time (it takes two times to actually understand the plot) I was compelled to analyze how oil consumption and addiction has made nations weaker and vulnerable in many ways when it comes to stability and collective security.
The US consumes 25% of the world's oil production and many of the world's security conflicts stem from our self-confessed addiction to petroleum products. Let me break it down for you:
Just recently Cheney's critical speech of Russia's autocratic government was met with silent dismay (calls have been raised to suspend Russia's membership into the G8 because of its democratic crackdowns). Behind the lack of response? Oil and natural gas, and of course Russia has plenty to feed US demand and the world's.
The US, Europe and Asia need oil and natural gas and are willing to abandon western principles and independence to get them. This is called addiction. One possibility to the lack of consensus the US has tried to gather from the European Union and the UN Security Council to stop Iran from enriching uranium (accused of developing nuclear weapons) may have a deeper explanation: as the world's oil reserves diminish and ways to explore and extract it become more expensive, securing Middle Eastern oil and Russia's own production is at the heart of the debate. I still fathom the possibility that the Iraq war has been the linkage to securing a buffer zone to deal with extremist regimes in the Middle East that are sitting on the oil wells we westerners have an addiction to.
Another good example of how our addiction is in direct conflict with our democratic principles is our ambiguous relationship with Saudi Arabia, which supplied 15 of 19 Sept. 11 terrorists. Most of our oil comes from this country, yet as we continue to crackdown on terrorist and extremist Muslim nations worldwide that can produce attacks on US soil or allies, we seem to ignore the fact that this nation still teaches militant Islam in school textbooks, and has not produced democratic elections in decades.
We all know that the cost of oil will keep rising thanks to climate change, widespread authoritarianism (Venezuela and Iran) and nuclear proliferation. Developing countries will be hit the hardest as their bargaining power is almost non-effective and citizens end with most of the hidden costs.
We need not only to recognize that we have an addiction, but to seek practical alternatives to oil. There is much to learn from Brazil, which developed a cost-effective, alternative to oil. Three decades ago, Brazil made a shift in consumption and invested in sugar cane ethanol production. Today, Brazil has succeeded where other industrialized nations have failed: it has become energy independent. During his most memorable moment in this year’s State of the Union address, Pres. Bush finally recognized this country’s addiction to oil; now let’s act together to find the cure.
During his most memorable moment in this year’s State of the Union address, Pres. Bush finally recognized this country’s addiction to oil; now let’s act together to find the cure. Developing alternative energy sources is not economic suicide like many have advocated, instead it is a national security issue just as it’s a vital economic one. It would be advantageous for the US to assume a leading role in a cleaner and more sustainable world.
The US consumes 25% of the world's oil production and many of the world's security conflicts stem from our self-confessed addiction to petroleum products. Let me break it down for you:
Just recently Cheney's critical speech of Russia's autocratic government was met with silent dismay (calls have been raised to suspend Russia's membership into the G8 because of its democratic crackdowns). Behind the lack of response? Oil and natural gas, and of course Russia has plenty to feed US demand and the world's.
The US, Europe and Asia need oil and natural gas and are willing to abandon western principles and independence to get them. This is called addiction. One possibility to the lack of consensus the US has tried to gather from the European Union and the UN Security Council to stop Iran from enriching uranium (accused of developing nuclear weapons) may have a deeper explanation: as the world's oil reserves diminish and ways to explore and extract it become more expensive, securing Middle Eastern oil and Russia's own production is at the heart of the debate. I still fathom the possibility that the Iraq war has been the linkage to securing a buffer zone to deal with extremist regimes in the Middle East that are sitting on the oil wells we westerners have an addiction to.
Another good example of how our addiction is in direct conflict with our democratic principles is our ambiguous relationship with Saudi Arabia, which supplied 15 of 19 Sept. 11 terrorists. Most of our oil comes from this country, yet as we continue to crackdown on terrorist and extremist Muslim nations worldwide that can produce attacks on US soil or allies, we seem to ignore the fact that this nation still teaches militant Islam in school textbooks, and has not produced democratic elections in decades.
We all know that the cost of oil will keep rising thanks to climate change, widespread authoritarianism (Venezuela and Iran) and nuclear proliferation. Developing countries will be hit the hardest as their bargaining power is almost non-effective and citizens end with most of the hidden costs.
We need not only to recognize that we have an addiction, but to seek practical alternatives to oil. There is much to learn from Brazil, which developed a cost-effective, alternative to oil. Three decades ago, Brazil made a shift in consumption and invested in sugar cane ethanol production. Today, Brazil has succeeded where other industrialized nations have failed: it has become energy independent. During his most memorable moment in this year’s State of the Union address, Pres. Bush finally recognized this country’s addiction to oil; now let’s act together to find the cure.
During his most memorable moment in this year’s State of the Union address, Pres. Bush finally recognized this country’s addiction to oil; now let’s act together to find the cure. Developing alternative energy sources is not economic suicide like many have advocated, instead it is a national security issue just as it’s a vital economic one. It would be advantageous for the US to assume a leading role in a cleaner and more sustainable world.
June 20, 2006
Iraq War: donkey vs. elephant
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.
When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:
a. FDR led us into World War II.
Because we were attacked by Japan and we launched an attack on them (well deserved, because they were killing massive Chinese and other Asian too), before FDR, republican presidents had led this country into an isolationist retrieve and so we emerged , thanks to WWII and FDR, as the respected leader in the WORLD that we are today. That was a conscientious decision from a very good foreign policy maker president. (the only one so far)
b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.
First imagine the world today with a Germanized Europe, then let's talk
c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us..
>From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 18,334 per year.
Yes Truman did start a war (that had an end) as ANY other president would have (especially a Republican one);at the time, we were making foreign policy decisions that were compatible with the democratic ideals of this country, the war was a tool to stop the spread of communism, something the RIGHT has always been scared of.
d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
You are wrong, the decision to liberate South Vietman was already in the table thanks to Eisenhower (the Republican President), Kennedy had no choice especially when it was being pressured by the right to stop COMMUNISM (you know the thing that the RIGHT is most afraid of).
e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.
Vietnam was a mess since the start, whether a republican or democrat as president. It was an open-ended military and ideological war, just like Iraq is today.
f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
multiple occasions.
Have you looked at Bosnia today? or Serbia and Croatia? I believe they are democratic or at least close to that. Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia today are European Union candidates. Besides we went in not to "force the establishment of a democracy" but to STOP the beginning of genocide (ethnic cleansing), like the one going one in Darfur today. Democracy came as a by product of having NATO and the UN presence. The problem with the Iraq war is that it never should have been fought as part of the global fight against terror. There were very little terrorists in Iraq; today is a lair of terrorists thanks to the US invansion.
g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North
Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The most problable and intelligent reason to assume there has not been another terrorist attack is not because we are safer today, is probably due to the fact that the enemy is in recharge (has no funds at this time), that means that they can take as long as they need to inflict pain again, that is what they do best, it has nothing to do with our intelligence and leadership abilities and everybody knows that. In regards to those other "accomplishments" that Bush has realized they are very ill founded. Liberating a country does not mean winning the war on terror, his actions have ignited the war on terror to the point that terrorism will now be part of the US foregin policy agenda for many years to come.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.
Democrats and republicans alike are complaining about the bad administration and the mishandling of the war, not how many years is taking. It will take as much as it is needed, because we cannot afford to lose it, yet we desperately need new policies.
But it took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
A very bad choice of analogy that deserves no comment.
That was a 51-day operation..
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
Another bad one too. It has nothing to do with national security. Republicans made this war a national security issue and look where we are today.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
Seriously these are not in any way comparable choices. But I will comment that the brilliance of Rumsfeld was to disband the Republican Guard and leave them their arms and now we are fighting them as insurgents. That was a TERRIBLE mistake, that one is costing lives.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
So you mean we have Iraq in our hands now?
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military morale is high!
Sure he is doing the best he can do. I mean we are talking about a guy that quits everything when it goes bad (his oil company, his baseball team, his national guard service). But some will say he is sticking to his guns, not changing course is what is hurting our military and our pockets.
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts
We have already realized what this administration is made of. thank you.
But Wait . Bring it on
There's more!
--
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.
When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:
a. FDR led us into World War II.
Because we were attacked by Japan and we launched an attack on them (well deserved, because they were killing massive Chinese and other Asian too), before FDR, republican presidents had led this country into an isolationist retrieve and so we emerged , thanks to WWII and FDR, as the respected leader in the WORLD that we are today. That was a conscientious decision from a very good foreign policy maker president. (the only one so far)
b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.
First imagine the world today with a Germanized Europe, then let's talk
c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us..
>From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 18,334 per year.
Yes Truman did start a war (that had an end) as ANY other president would have (especially a Republican one);at the time, we were making foreign policy decisions that were compatible with the democratic ideals of this country, the war was a tool to stop the spread of communism, something the RIGHT has always been scared of.
d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
You are wrong, the decision to liberate South Vietman was already in the table thanks to Eisenhower (the Republican President), Kennedy had no choice especially when it was being pressured by the right to stop COMMUNISM (you know the thing that the RIGHT is most afraid of).
e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.
Vietnam was a mess since the start, whether a republican or democrat as president. It was an open-ended military and ideological war, just like Iraq is today.
f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
multiple occasions.
Have you looked at Bosnia today? or Serbia and Croatia? I believe they are democratic or at least close to that. Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia today are European Union candidates. Besides we went in not to "force the establishment of a democracy" but to STOP the beginning of genocide (ethnic cleansing), like the one going one in Darfur today. Democracy came as a by product of having NATO and the UN presence. The problem with the Iraq war is that it never should have been fought as part of the global fight against terror. There were very little terrorists in Iraq; today is a lair of terrorists thanks to the US invansion.
g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North
Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The most problable and intelligent reason to assume there has not been another terrorist attack is not because we are safer today, is probably due to the fact that the enemy is in recharge (has no funds at this time), that means that they can take as long as they need to inflict pain again, that is what they do best, it has nothing to do with our intelligence and leadership abilities and everybody knows that. In regards to those other "accomplishments" that Bush has realized they are very ill founded. Liberating a country does not mean winning the war on terror, his actions have ignited the war on terror to the point that terrorism will now be part of the US foregin policy agenda for many years to come.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.
Democrats and republicans alike are complaining about the bad administration and the mishandling of the war, not how many years is taking. It will take as much as it is needed, because we cannot afford to lose it, yet we desperately need new policies.
But it took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
A very bad choice of analogy that deserves no comment.
That was a 51-day operation..
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
Another bad one too. It has nothing to do with national security. Republicans made this war a national security issue and look where we are today.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
Seriously these are not in any way comparable choices. But I will comment that the brilliance of Rumsfeld was to disband the Republican Guard and leave them their arms and now we are fighting them as insurgents. That was a TERRIBLE mistake, that one is costing lives.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
So you mean we have Iraq in our hands now?
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military morale is high!
Sure he is doing the best he can do. I mean we are talking about a guy that quits everything when it goes bad (his oil company, his baseball team, his national guard service). But some will say he is sticking to his guns, not changing course is what is hurting our military and our pockets.
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts
We have already realized what this administration is made of. thank you.
But Wait . Bring it on
There's more!
--
On torture
Last week we learned in dismay that two American soldiers had been kidnapped by the insurgency at a security checkpoint in Iraq. It is the first time the insurgency has succeeded in kidnapping American troops. It is a scary situation. Why? As this war drags on, so does our military and ideological confidence (this is as much a military as an ideological war). Since this administration has been accused of torture, and as we continue to knock on doors of countries were it is legal and acceptable (outsourcing torture), we have exacerbated this issue to the point of no return.
Before we were accused of torturing enemy combatants, we could protest the abuse of our soldiers and contractors in captivity and be supported by our allies. Unfortunately, this is not the case today. Thanks to the Bush-Cheney torture policy, our two soldiers have no considerable protection and we have no justification to evoke the Geneva Convention, after it has been chewed up by this administration. This is why torture is always wrong, no matter the circumstances. Generations of American troops have cemented the idea that torture was unthinkable. No longer. This is just one of the many things gone wrong on this war.
Before we were accused of torturing enemy combatants, we could protest the abuse of our soldiers and contractors in captivity and be supported by our allies. Unfortunately, this is not the case today. Thanks to the Bush-Cheney torture policy, our two soldiers have no considerable protection and we have no justification to evoke the Geneva Convention, after it has been chewed up by this administration. This is why torture is always wrong, no matter the circumstances. Generations of American troops have cemented the idea that torture was unthinkable. No longer. This is just one of the many things gone wrong on this war.
June 18, 2006
Voters beware: House Republicans on the hunt again
Republicans in the House have officially unleashed their divisive political stunts at the near-sight of Congressional elections. Last Friday, the House voted 256-153 to reject a timetable for the pullout of US troops in Iraq (as if there are no other pressing issues facing our nation like immigration reform, education, state of emergency medical facilities, and high gasoline prices to name a few), fiercely igniting an ongoing debate about the mismanagement of the war in Iraq and the open-ended commitment and resources this Administration is blindly banking on. According to the Associated Press, "the Republican-led House has approved a non-binding resolution that praises US troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest".
The surreptitious move in this strategic political stunt is to rally republican support for the President's failed Iraq policy and to mold it into a cheap political slogan for the coming elections, using it to engage votes in a platform that suggests that if you are not for the support of the troops and the fight against terrorism then you must be unpatriotic and a traitor. Voters beware: Republicans want to make you believe that opposing the war is not on our national interest, but what we are REALLY saying is this: let's have a comprehensive review of policies and consider redeployment. A change in direction is in the best interest of the US and Iraq. Like the USA Today stated on Friday's Our View: the (House) debate is a cynical display of election-year politics that turns troops into political pawns.
I couldn't agree more.
The surreptitious move in this strategic political stunt is to rally republican support for the President's failed Iraq policy and to mold it into a cheap political slogan for the coming elections, using it to engage votes in a platform that suggests that if you are not for the support of the troops and the fight against terrorism then you must be unpatriotic and a traitor. Voters beware: Republicans want to make you believe that opposing the war is not on our national interest, but what we are REALLY saying is this: let's have a comprehensive review of policies and consider redeployment. A change in direction is in the best interest of the US and Iraq. Like the USA Today stated on Friday's Our View: the (House) debate is a cynical display of election-year politics that turns troops into political pawns.
I couldn't agree more.
June 16, 2006
The unrecognizable face of the office of the US Presidency
A lot has changed since January 2001 when the US presidency was assumed by George W. Bush. It is truly a privilege to witness the transfer of government in this solemn nation that prides itself in the democratic republic it was founded upon. Only a few nations in the world can experience this truly remarkable sight: the transfer of power in a transparent, democratic way. Hurray!
However, not everything is like it seems and this great nation of ours has seen an unprecedented use of executive powers that go well beyond the established Constitutional ones.
Since taken power in January 2001, President Bush has expanded presidential authority over this land without been challenged or denied. It has taken 5 ½ years for the other equal branches of government: Congress and the Courts to begin to push back against this great trespassing of government authority. In fact, Bush’s executive branch has seen the greatest expansion of presidential powers in a generation or more. (So much for limited government, you know that well-known Republican slogan).
Anyway going back to the issue, the most striking scenario has just been framed in regards to these powers. Congress has made an outcry of the FBI’s recent raid of the office of a congressman because it was not properly briefed about it. The Senate Intelligence Committee is demanding fuller briefings and copies of warrants submitted prior to the any search. Hah! I see, when it comes to members of Congress, then the Executive and the Courts are trespassing, but the American people have been complaining for over 5 years now. This is starting to look interesting, because it can actually give the Democrats a chance to win back the House or Senate this coming election.
Among the extended presidential powers the Bush White House has acquired are the following:
• Keep deliberations private/refusal to testify: White House Aides have refused to testify about the federal response to 9/11 and Katrina, arguing that it might discourage staffers from providing “untarnished advice” in the future.
• Restrict access to presidential papers: Bush signed an executive order in 2001 permitting former and current presidents and vice-presidents to restrict the release of their papers, which become public after 12 years of the end of an administration. (Is there anything else he is hiding from us?)
• Set aside laws and treaties: Ok this one is really annoying: Someone wrote a memo asserting that the president of the US (Bush) could violate federal laws and international treaties when he viewed it as necessary for the nation’s security. That someone was Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.
• Interpret and curtail new laws: I was not aware he could actually interpret anything. Bush has issued more than 750 “signing statements” –more than all previous presidents combined - designed to state his own interpretation of the law and in some cases to claim a presidential prerogative not to enforce provisions that he says encroach on executive authority. For example the Torture Bill sponsored by Sen. McCain, which says that no torture will be performed by US military personnel, but Bush inserted a signing statement saying he holds the final say on the torture issue.
• Permit warrantless surveillance on domestic calls: Bush authorized the NSA to wiretap domestic phone calls of terror suspects without a court warrant if one of the participants is from abroad.
• Limit judicial oversight: This one really worries me and it should you too. The president claims the authority to designate US citizens “enemy combatants” who can be held indefinitely without charges. He has also asserted the right to hold terrorist suspects overseas and try them before special military commissions.
However, not everything is like it seems and this great nation of ours has seen an unprecedented use of executive powers that go well beyond the established Constitutional ones.
Since taken power in January 2001, President Bush has expanded presidential authority over this land without been challenged or denied. It has taken 5 ½ years for the other equal branches of government: Congress and the Courts to begin to push back against this great trespassing of government authority. In fact, Bush’s executive branch has seen the greatest expansion of presidential powers in a generation or more. (So much for limited government, you know that well-known Republican slogan).
Anyway going back to the issue, the most striking scenario has just been framed in regards to these powers. Congress has made an outcry of the FBI’s recent raid of the office of a congressman because it was not properly briefed about it. The Senate Intelligence Committee is demanding fuller briefings and copies of warrants submitted prior to the any search. Hah! I see, when it comes to members of Congress, then the Executive and the Courts are trespassing, but the American people have been complaining for over 5 years now. This is starting to look interesting, because it can actually give the Democrats a chance to win back the House or Senate this coming election.
Among the extended presidential powers the Bush White House has acquired are the following:
• Keep deliberations private/refusal to testify: White House Aides have refused to testify about the federal response to 9/11 and Katrina, arguing that it might discourage staffers from providing “untarnished advice” in the future.
• Restrict access to presidential papers: Bush signed an executive order in 2001 permitting former and current presidents and vice-presidents to restrict the release of their papers, which become public after 12 years of the end of an administration. (Is there anything else he is hiding from us?)
• Set aside laws and treaties: Ok this one is really annoying: Someone wrote a memo asserting that the president of the US (Bush) could violate federal laws and international treaties when he viewed it as necessary for the nation’s security. That someone was Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.
• Interpret and curtail new laws: I was not aware he could actually interpret anything. Bush has issued more than 750 “signing statements” –more than all previous presidents combined - designed to state his own interpretation of the law and in some cases to claim a presidential prerogative not to enforce provisions that he says encroach on executive authority. For example the Torture Bill sponsored by Sen. McCain, which says that no torture will be performed by US military personnel, but Bush inserted a signing statement saying he holds the final say on the torture issue.
• Permit warrantless surveillance on domestic calls: Bush authorized the NSA to wiretap domestic phone calls of terror suspects without a court warrant if one of the participants is from abroad.
• Limit judicial oversight: This one really worries me and it should you too. The president claims the authority to designate US citizens “enemy combatants” who can be held indefinitely without charges. He has also asserted the right to hold terrorist suspects overseas and try them before special military commissions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
