Yes and has caused more damage to American liberty than the terrorist ever could. He has grabbed at far more power than needed to fight terrorism. The justice department should be neutral to ensure fairness for all Americans, not filled with political idealist who want to control or lives. The military should not spy on US citizens. Look at the FBI abuse of the "Patriot" Act. The administration arguments about why they don't need to follow the law sound like a McCarthy witch-hunt. I can not recall ever having a more dishonest President since Nixon!
Congress is partially to blame - they shirked their responsibility to declare war. I know it was the last congress, but the institution has abdicated that responsibility since WW II. Now they are shirking impeachment and failing to uphold the US constitution.
2007-10-17 17:45:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by bubba 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
Absolutely! The war on Terror could have been conducted on the foreign part by the expedient of issuing letters of Marque and Reprisal--basically by treating the terrorists organizations as a land equivalent to pirates. It is constitutional and would deal with the threat with a minimum of fuss. On the domestic front it should have been handled just like any other criminal case using the same rules that any other criminal case does.
Instead the Bush White House went ahead with a preplanned war agenda that was not dependent on 9/11, but was planned out at least as early as 2000 by the Project for a New American Century. 9/11 gave them the "new Pearl Harbor" that they needed in order to justify the unilateral use of force by the "sole remaining super Power." Look up " Rebuilding Americas Defenses" And note well that the basic outline of the Iraq war was drawn up in 1992 by Dick Cheney when he was Sec of Defense, as detailed in that report. Also note the list of signers of that document, and those that are part of the Project of a New American Century in general. They include:
Jeb Bush,Dick Cheney,William J. Bennett, Zalmay Khalilzad,I. Lewis Libby,Donald Rumsfeld,Paul Wolfowitz ,Dan Quayle,
Dov Zakhiem, William Kristol,Elliott Abrams,Gary Bauer,Eliot A. Cohen,Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, SteveForbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Norman Podhoretz, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen,Henry S. Rowen, Vin Weber,George Weigel
and in fact is a veritable who's who of the Neoconservative movement. And these are further some of the biggest players in the military industrial complex. Google them if you do not believe me.
As to the examples of domestic powers: How about holding people as "enemy combatants" solely on the say so of the President. Or maybe the warrantless wiretapping? How about the striping of the Right to the writ of Habeous Corpus?
Torture that is not torture due to a legal definition change. Executive orders that make it a violation to "support the foreign enemy"--and that term is very vaguely and loosely construed--that can result in unilateral seizure of assets by the Executive, with out any Judicial review--EVER!! Not to mention those travisties of American legislature Patriot 1 & 2 and the Military Commisions Act, the Real ID Act,........
Man the list goes on and on.
2007-10-17 17:56:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.
That job, as the document describes, is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.
The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
Translated into layman's terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.
Ironically, the directive sees no contradiction in the assumption of dictatorial powers by the president with the goal of maintaining constitutional continuity through an emergency.
2007-10-17 17:33:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by letfreedomring 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Bush did not use 9/11 to expand executive power; he used it to implement a plan he had all alone. He wanted the oils of Iraq, and he wanted to get even with Sadaam. Bin Laden has all but been ignored. Everything is Iraq. His personality type is one that seeks total power and submission.
He is sociopathic in that thousands of innocent deaths do not bother him in the least. He sleeps like a baby. This is the same man knowingly allowed innocent death rowinmates to go to their deaths. I knew he was demon possessed at that point. Even a serial killer has a heart to some degree.
For terrorism, he allowed the border to stay open. He only has little over a year in office, and they still will be open when the next one gets in.
2007-10-17 17:39:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by Richard S 4
·
1⤊
3⤋
section 314 of Public regulation #107-108 exceeded in December of 2001 approved warrantless digital surveillance for as much as seventy two hours. the administrative grew to become into additionally given extra powers in the Patriot Act exceeded by skill of the Congress. Public regulation #107-40, exceeded on September 18, 2001, authorized militia action to try against terrorism. Public regulation #107-243, exceeded in 2002, authorized militia movements against Iraq. lots of the motives contained in that regulation have been already modern-day in the Iraq Liberation Act , which exceeded on October 31, 1998. So, in spite of advance in government powers might have come after the attack on usa, the Congress prolonged those powers by skill of passing the guidelines which did so. it will be left to the suited court docket, completing its judicial evaluate, to confirm no be counted if or no longer those rules are repugnant to the form and, consequently, null and void.
2016-10-13 00:55:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, No, and Yes.
Bush has signed more Executive Orders than any other President on topics ranging from "faith-based" programs, education, and the environment. This is unprecedented, and most of them have nothing to do with terrorism.
2007-10-17 17:29:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by knowmeansknow 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
yes he did use it to expand the power of the executive branch, something a true conservative would not do, seeing as they hate big government. And by the way, the power of the executive branch has been growing since Reagan's Administration
2007-10-17 17:26:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by smartass 3
·
1⤊
3⤋
Yes.
No.
Yes.
9/11 was the perfect opportunity to permanently end terrorism and GHWB completely muffed it.
The destruction of Mecca would have been justifiable considering that 17 of the 19 hijackers were Wahabist Saudi Islamofascists.
But noooooooooooooooooo, he wanted to topple Saddam instead.
The rest is history.
Unfortunate history.
.
2007-10-17 17:30:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
To a certain extent but it hasn't been overused.
The only people suffering from the expanded power are the terrorists.
My life hasn't changed. Has yours?
2007-10-17 17:29:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by kevin s 6
·
2⤊
3⤋
Doy *knocks upside head with a plastic bottle*
2007-10-17 17:26:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋