How the fuck did this get missed?
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bush_seeks_to_institutionalize_war_powers_0830.html

Bush quietly seeks to make war powers permanent, by declaring indefinite state of war
John Byrne
Published: Saturday August 30, 2008

As the nation focuses on Sen. John McCain's choice of running mate, President Bush has quietly moved to expand the reach of presidential power by ensuring that America remains in a state of permanent war.

Buried in a recent proposal by the Administration is a sentence that has received scant attention -- and was buried itself in the very newspaper that exposed it Saturday. It is an affirmation that the United States remains at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban and "associated organizations."

Part of a proposal for Guantanamo Bay legal detainees, the provision before Congress seeks to “acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”

The New York Times' page 8 placement of the article in its Saturday edition seems to downplay its importance. Such a re-affirmation of war carries broad legal implications that could imperil Americans' civil liberties and the rights of foreign nationals for decades to come.

It was under the guise of war that President Bush claimed a legal mandate for his warrantless wiretapping program, giving the National Security Agency power to intercept calls Americans made abroad. More of this program has emerged in recent years, and it includes the surveillance of Americans' information and exchanges online.

"War powers" have also given President Bush cover to hold Americans without habeas corpus -- detainment without explanation or charge. Jose Padilla, a Chicago resident arrested in 2002, was held without trial for five years before being convicted of conspiring to kill individuals abroad and provide support for terrorism.

But his arrest was made with proclamations that Padilla had plans to build a "dirty bomb." He was never convicted of this charge. Padilla's legal team also claimed that during his time in military custody -- the four years he was held without charge -- he was tortured with sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, forced stress positions and injected with drugs.

Times reporter Eric Lichtblau notes that the measure is the latest step that the Administration has taken to "make permanent" key aspects of its "long war" against terrorism. Congress recently passed a much-maligned bill giving telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for their participation in what constitutional experts see as an illegal or borderline-illegal surveillance program, and is considering efforts to give the FBI more power in their investigative techniques.

"It is uncertain whether Congress will take the administration up on its request," Lichtblau writes. "Some Republicans have already embraced the idea, with Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, introducing a measure almost identical to the administration’s proposal. 'Since 9/11,' Mr. Smith said, 'we have been at war with an unconventional enemy whose primary goal is to kill innocent Americans.'"

If enough Republicans come aboard, Democrats may struggle to defeat the provision. Despite holding majorities in the House and Senate, they have failed to beat back some of President Bush's purported "security" measures, such as the telecom immunity bill.

Bush's open-ended permanent war language worries his critics. They say it could provide indefinite, if hazy, legal justification for any number of activities -- including detention of terrorists suspects at bases like Guantanamo Bay (where for years the Administration would not even release the names of those being held), and the NSA's warantless wiretapping program.

Lichtblau co-wrote the Times article revealing the Administration's eavesdropping program along with fellow reporter James Risen.

He notes that Bush's language "recalls a resolution, known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001... [which] authorized the president to 'use all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks to prevent future strikes. That authorization, still in effect, was initially viewed by many members of Congress who voted for it as the go-ahead for the administration to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, which had given sanctuary to Mr. bin Laden."

"But the military authorization became the secret legal basis for some of the administration’s most controversial legal tactics, including the wiretapping program, and that still gnaws at some members of Congress," he adds.

Why should you be surprised by a yet another power-grab by the federal government? And for the record, should such a measure be implemented, I do not see a Democratic president (i.e., Obama) overturning this once in office. Once another part of the Pandora's Box of presidential power is opened, there will be no closing it. Whether or not this power is used will be up to the executive officer in question, but merely the power to do so will not be erased by said executor regardless of party affiliation.

Can he please just go away? How in the hell did we elect the worst leader in the history of the most powerful nation in the history of the world not once but twice? We’re awful, face it. It falls on us. It's sad. It’s as simple as that. When we had a chance to truly set our selves apart from the other countries who had gained the power we had, we went and chose this piece of @#%$% #$#%% to lead us.

I’ve never felt so angry, so mad, and helpless about anything as I am with this fuckin’ piece of shit. It’s like I’m watching this really cute girl get roofied at a party and I can’t do anything about it.

i totally agree with you JW. The american people(i guess i have to say "we") are to blame. And that is why i am quite nervous about this election. People are so easily manipulated and foul play with election results goes unchecked. Apathy rules; the "as long as it's not in my backyard" mentality prevails. It makes me so sad.

The writing on the wall was always there with bush. If people were informed about him before the 2000 election, he wouldn't have been elected. 2004 is inexcusable.

btw, what is roofied?

Because, as I've been saying for years, quite simply the majority of Americans are complete idiots.

I disagree. I believe it is more likely due to apathy when it comes to politics. The choices are terrible, and if people vote at all they will probably vote their tax bracket and leave it at that. I am personally aware of many very intelligent people who consistently vote Republican because they feel it serves their interests best. And I do not blame them one bit, because voting is a personal choice and should serve your own interests. Unfortunately, there is seldom a decent candidate to vote for anymore. On a personal level, my life is not much different, if at all, during George W. Bush's regime than it was during Clinton's. The same was true of George H.W. Bush and Reagan before that. Life will go on much the same with Obama or McCain as well. Nothing really changes with these elections, as the federal government will continue to grow and irritate as it always has.

See that's actually sort of an argument my older brother has used on me in the past. I remember a couple years ago we were talking politics, and I was surprised when he said he never bothers to vote, and that he believes that for him as the "common man" (though between his job and his wife's, I'd say they're at worst at the very top of the middle class, they make a fair living and have a very nice house), his life for the most part is never really affected by whomever is president. And, ya know what, without knowing all the little intricacies of their daily life, but that which I do know of, to be honest I'm not sure I see where he's wrong.

Having said that, I absolutely have no second thoughts about being as politically engaged as I am. Of course I have other friends who don't bother to vote because they believe that a major thing like Roe V Wade will not ever (or at least for a very long time) have a serious threat to it getting overturned, that really it's more of the will of the country as a whole for it to be that way, and so basically having that in mind they really don't care too much if it's a Republican in office (just to give one example).

edit: But for the record, the American stupidity I see on a daily basis goes well past political leanings, so...

There is a part of me that warmed to the idea of being similar to one's older brother.



I believe we have been affected, but no change will come about from the action of voting for two candidates that differ very little if not for semantics. The government does indeed play a large and intrusive role in all of our lives, but whomever is in charge of said government has not really mattered in the slightest to me in my life. The government is still there and still growing regardless of the party or president in question. Presidents may change, but the system will always be in place if the only route to change is through voting for major party candidates sporting only the ability to make great speeches and kiss babies.



You should not. We all should have the freedom to engage in activities that we enjoy.



That may be true for you. I see things quite differently.

Any interest in how the rest of the country and the world fare with a different president?

Not particularly, since I have lived long enough to know that it does not make any difference. As I have said before, real change does not come from elections and voting. Real change is often very difficult if not nearly impossible to obtain, and usually comes from the barrel of the gun, the tip of the blade, and the end of the fist. You can believe that Obama will change things, as others believed Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon....etc would as well. I think of it as an exercise in pure and unadulterated futility.

What a crock of shit.

Yes, indeed. Violent revolution has clearly never changed anything, has it? There has never been a moment in the history of mankind where blood was shed in the spirit of change and revolution that mattered. No sir. Never. Ever. We could fool ourselves into believing that too.

Or we could pull our well-buried heads out of the sand.

I was saying more that things have obviously been changed with the rule of law before. The civil rights movement (which was mostly non-violent) comes to mind. So yeah, you're full of shit. Pull your head out of whatever fringe claptrap you're reading and open a history book for christ's sake.

The Civil Rights movement would have never come to fruition without the American Revolution providing the very nation which spawned it. Oddly enough to you, I do not consider the Civil Rights movement to be on the same scale as the American Revolution and other uprisings like it. It is a by-product of it, and obtainable (arguably) through the electoral process. Seeing how it took many decades to be realized, and still is not fully realized today (i.e., homosexuals) shows how inefficient and rather toothless the so-called non-violent electoral process of change really is. Real change does not come from ballots.

In short, I am not buying what you are selling. I disagree.

If you were smart you would have brought up the Civil War since that's a lot more relevant, but you're not really smart.

The Civil War should have never been fought to begin with. It was an illegal war, as illegal as the invasion of Iraq. I suppose we just disagree. I do not think you are an unintelligent person, and I refuse to stoop to the level of insult and personal attack. Feel free to judge me as you wish, but be willing to accept the responsibilities and consequences of being a judgmental person.

Lysander,

While I must admit that in my short time living in a middle class family I have not experienced any drastic changes from one administration to another, I do think there may be some short-sightedness in thinking that nothing will change in the future as a result of the people that are chosen as leaders. Perhaps one administration is not enough to cause a significant shift in some people's way of life, but a string of terms of people with a similar agenda could lead to some change of momentum. I'm not saying here that either of this year's candidates would cause this type of thing to happen, however, I do think that such a thing could be possible if all the things line up. It is naive to think the status quo is indefinite. I don't think that was what you were trying to say. We all know that in all the years ahead some things are bound to happen, life will no doubt be different. Who is to say when that will happen? I certainly don't know when or what will cause the next change. Now, I do agree that a leader isn't the only, or even the most powerful, factor in this. However, I do think who is ultimately chosen as our leader at least says something as to the direction the country is heading in.

Lysander, it's just that I find your anti-government rhetoric to be poorly constructed and contrarian just for the sake of it. I find it hard to take you seriously and you come across as amoral and poorly informed. I know what you're going to say before you even say it. But that's all I'll say about that.

While I shall hold fast to my view that true change cannot result from playing along with the very same government that seeks only its own propagation (through the electoral process), I understand your views on the matter. It is important for many to believe that change is possible. Hope springs eternal. Well said, tryinmorning.

I feel the same way about most of your statements, but it does not bother me in the slightest.



I hold my judgment about you, because I do not know you personally. Likewise, you have no idea who I am and understand very, very little about me and my life. You are free to form opinions about me and pass easy judgments based upon what you read upon a Pearl Jam message board. I choose not to do the same.