Setting the Record Straight
In today's LA Times, John Yoo, an architect of some of the policies struck down in last week's Hamdan decision, explains everything you need to know about the separation of powers, executive power during wartime, and why the Supreme Court egregiously overreached.
Here's a tidbit:
Congress has an important role but one exaggerated by critics of the war on terrorism. It could easily have blocked any aspect of the administration's terrorism policies simply by removing funding or political support. It could have closed Guantanamo Bay in a day, if it wished. Instead, it authorized the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against any individual, organization or state connected to the 9/11 attacks. Then, following past practices, it sat back and let the president handle the details and assume the political risks. Critics seem to believe that Bush's policies are at odds with the Republican Congress. They are not.
What makes this war different is not that the president acted while Congress watched but that the Supreme Court interfered while fighting was ongoing.
Indeed.
Here's a tidbit:
Congress has an important role but one exaggerated by critics of the war on terrorism. It could easily have blocked any aspect of the administration's terrorism policies simply by removing funding or political support. It could have closed Guantanamo Bay in a day, if it wished. Instead, it authorized the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against any individual, organization or state connected to the 9/11 attacks. Then, following past practices, it sat back and let the president handle the details and assume the political risks. Critics seem to believe that Bush's policies are at odds with the Republican Congress. They are not.
What makes this war different is not that the president acted while Congress watched but that the Supreme Court interfered while fighting was ongoing.
Indeed.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:32 AM
8 Comments:
I just don't get what you find appealing in Yoo's argument. Other than a basic claim that we should fight terrorism, do you find any substance in his article? I don't think he addresses the issues at stake in Hamdan except in a superficial way.
page27
http://the27th.blogspot.com/
Mr. Wrabkin;
We all are aware of what you are against. What are you for? Can you explain your political philosophy in one pr two clear, concise sentences?
JUst a simple sttement of your political philosophy without quoting the constitution.
I believe in limited government. I believe that decisions shoul be made at the lowest level possible - the comminity if possible. I believe in the value of the traditional family. I believe that the Values in the Torah (or bible) are a guide to how I should live my life.
I'm not trying to trap you or debate the point, but working out your actual belief system is a marvelous excersize.
I'm sure that we will disagree on some points, but we will have an idea where the other person is coming from?
One of the principle areas where we disagree is taxation. I oppose all but the most neccessary taqxes. Taxation is inherently (in my opinion) immoral. I believe that the rich are a national assett and should be encouraged to continue on in their busiess --- Assuming that they function within a minimal set of laws.
See - we acn now discuss our disagreements withoug gerttting personal. We can disagree with concepts NOT people.
B'Shalom
"Congress has an important role but one exaggerated by critics of the war on terrorism. It could easily have blocked any aspect of the administration's terrorism policies simply by removing funding or political support. It could have closed Guantanamo Bay in a day, if it wished."
What pretty sentiments. Unfortunately, the President heads a rogue administration that believes there is absolutely no role for Congress in its muscular foreign policy.
Case in point--in 2002 Congress provided funding explicitly for the war in Afghanistan and solely for the war in Afghanistan. Did the Bush administration obey the law as written? No, it shifted funds explictly earmarked for fighting in Afghanistan to pre-fund the staging of troops and equipment for an invasion of Iraq. This unlawful shift was, of course, not publically disclosed until 2005.
The Flomblog writes, "JUst a simple sttement of your political philosophy without quoting the constitution."
Wrabkin, for what it's worth, I think holding to the Constitution is itself a fairly decent political philosophy.
What am I for? I am for the principles on which this nation was founded...
Stirring stuff.
"What am I for? I am for the principles on which this nation was founded"
That's not an opion, it's a bumper sticker slogan!
Seriously, what is your personal philosophy on government?
Wrabkin:
Good response! I, for one appreciate it. It's a "prettied-up" and very general statement of some of the loftier ideals from the left.
I agree with a lot of the things you say you are for. Where we are likely to differ is on how to achieve those goals.
But even in portraying your ideals in as good a light as possible, you reveal how socialist thinking has poisoned you against some of the things that have allowed America to become a great nation (like capitalism).
By the way, do you believe America is a great nation?
And as for truth and accountability and transparency in government, do you think it is true that communist and socialist governments have proven to be harmful to the people they govern? Do you think those forms of government should be held accountable for the results of their policies? How transparent have those governments been?
But I have to give you high marks for some of the other things you say you are for, particularly Van Morrison and Bob Dylan!
Post a Comment
<< Home