GW Bush Sticks his Foot in his Mouth

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-13 07:02pm

JAMES MADISON, THOMAS JEFFERSON... Hey, Shrubby, these two presidents would like to have a few words with you. You know, the ones that wrote the bill of rights you spit on when you get up every morning.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-01-13 08:03pm

I think everybody sees the problem now. So many presidents planted seeds, but it took decades for any of them to grow, and nearly all of them were watered with bad, as well as good, intentions.

Jefferson helped draft the seminal documents of our democracy, but was also a prominent slave-holder and champion of voter restriction.

Lincoln freed the slaves, but was himself uninterested in their plight, and criticized during his time as a near-tyrant.

Jackson expanded the electorate to approximate what was at the time the world's most equitable representation of any given population, but committed vast crimes against native inhabitants of his own country.

Wilson promulgated his Fourteen Points, but was an avowed rascist.

It's a tough choice. In George Bush, Sr.'s favor, he helped rescue the Kuwaitis and negotiated through the final years of the Cold War. He comes out smelling like one of the best. Regan is also a contender if you subscribe to the theory that it was he who bested the Soviets through the escalation of spending and challenging of deterrence, but we all know of his foreign policy initiatives.

Bush, Jr., by comparison, still doesn't seem so bad. If you're criticizing Iraq and Afghanistan, at least there's more a possibility now than before that the populations of those countries will enjoy prosperity.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-01-13 08:10pm

Axis Kast wrote: It's a tough choice. In George Bush, Sr.'s favor, he helped rescue the Kuwaitis and negotiated through the final years of the Cold War. He comes out smelling like one of the best. Regan is also a contender if you subscribe to the theory that it was he who bested the Soviets through the escalation of spending and challenging of deterrence, but we all know of his foreign policy initiatives.

And promised support to the Kurds which was immediately revoked while Saddam slaughtered them without promised US support. Give me a break.

In any case, what the fuck are you arguing exactly? GWB's statement is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard and it doesn't make a lick of difference whether or not he was a decent president or not. You cannot argue with a straight face that he has done more for human rights then any president before him.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-13 08:12pm

Bush, Jr., by comparison, still doesn't seem so bad. If you're criticizing Iraq and Afghanistan, at least there's more a possibility now than before that the populations of those countries will enjoy prosperity.

While he strips his own citizens of their constitutional rights...

Jefferson helped draft the seminal documents of our democracy, but was also a prominent slave-holder and champion of voter restriction.

He made sure his slaves were freed upon his death IIRC. Slaves were key to the economy at the time...

Lincoln freed the slaves, but was himself uninterested in their plight, and criticized during his time as a near-tyrant.

I will give you that.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-13 08:13pm

I have a hard time finding information at the time accusing Lincoln of tyranny which ISN'T from Southern sources, which are hardly unbiased.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-13 08:16pm

Well he did suspend Habeus Corpus(or tried to) and he did hold peope without trial... so he was a tyrant in that respect.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-13 08:17pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Well he did suspend Habeus Corpus(or tried to) and he did hold peope without trial... so he was a tyrant in that respect.

There was also a rebellion going on at the time. The Constitution allows some pretty severe methods to put down a rebellion.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-13 08:24pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:JAMES MADISON, THOMAS JEFFERSON... Hey, Shrubby, these two presidents would like to have a few words with you. You know, the ones that wrote the bill of rights you spit on when you get up every morning.

TJ had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights initially. Madison was the guy.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-01-14 01:25am

And promised support to the Kurds which was immediately revoked while Saddam slaughtered them without promised US support. Give me a break.

I have no grasp of the details I’ll admit, but I fail to see why the White House would throw its support behind any kind of armed rebellion unless it had originally supposed that (A) it might succeed, or (B) it might have been helped along. In that case, George Bush could be criticized as a bad gambler, but not as somebody who purposely sent Kurds marching to their deaths.

In any case, what the fuck are you arguing exactly? GWB's statement is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard and it doesn't make a lick of difference whether or not he was a decent president or not. You cannot argue with a straight face that he has done more for human rights then any president before him.

Then who has? My point is that his statement is a lot less ridiculous than one might think. It’s the equivalent of Scotty Pippin calling himself the world’s best basketball player as opposed to, say, somebody relatively unknown in the league.

While he strips his own citizens of their constitutional rights...

… just like Lincoln with Habeus Corpus.

He made sure his slaves were freed upon his death IIRC. Slaves were key to the economy at the time...

Bush has helped remove Saddam and the Taliban. As I’ve said before, slaves’ lives didn’t improve all that vastly under Lincoln’s guidance than the Iraqis’ or Afghanis’ at this point in time. But both presidents laid seeds.

I have a hard time finding information at the time accusing Lincoln of tyranny which ISN'T from Southern sources, which are hardly unbiased.

Look for information on the Knights of the Golden Circle. And about Midwestern opinions on the war. James M. McPherson has written about it considerably.

I’d also point out that The Gangs of New York wasn’t all that “off” in its portrayal of New York’s sympathies during the war. The state provided a great deal – but the city was home to plenty of sympathizers (and was often called the most Southern of any Northern city above Baltimore for all its monetary connections to the states of the Confederacy pre-war).

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-14 01:30am

Constitutionally speaking, Axis, the writ of habeas corpus is a privilege, not a right. A privilege which may be taken away in (and only in) the event of an insurrection or an invasion.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-01-14 02:14am

Iceberg wrote:Constitutionally speaking, Axis, the writ of habeas corpus is a privilege, not a right. A privilege which may be taken away in (and only in) the event of an insurrection or an invasion.

Incorrect.

habeas corpus:

1 : any of several common-law writs issued to bring a party before a court or judge; especially : HABEAS CORPUS AD SUBJICIENDUM

Bill of Rights wrote:Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-14 09:13am

kojikun wrote:
Iceberg wrote:Constitutionally speaking, Axis, the writ of habeas corpus is a privilege, not a right. A privilege which may be taken away in (and only in) the event of an insurrection or an invasion.
Incorrect.

habeas corpus:

1 : any of several common-law writs issued to bring a party before a court or judge; especially : HABEAS CORPUS AD SUBJICIENDUM

Bill of Rights wrote:Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

U.S. Constitution wrote:Article I, Section 9, Clause 2

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

You were saying?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-14 09:21am

The writ of habeas corpus has nothing to do with being confronted with the witnesses against you anyway, so quoting the 6th Amendment in regards to it is pointless.

'Lectric Law Library wrote:HABEAS CORPUS - Lat. "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.

The Constitution defines habeas corpus, as I showed in my last post, as a privilege, albeit one which can only be suspended in times of rebellion or invasion for the public safety (President Bush has partially suspended it now, even though we are under neither internal rebellion nor foreign invasion).

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-01-14 12:01pm

Axis Kast wrote: I have no grasp of the details I’ll admit, but I fail to see why the White House would throw its support behind any kind of armed rebellion unless it had originally supposed that (A) it might succeed, or (B) it might have been helped along. In that case, George Bush could be criticized as a bad gambler, but not as somebody who purposely sent Kurds marching to their deaths.

You really don't have much of a grasp on reality do you? Bush promised the Kurds support, then decided to pull that support after the Kurds had already made their attempts at open rebellion clear. Without the US to protect them, they were slaughtered. It doesn't get much clearer then that.

Then who has? My point is that his statement is a lot less ridiculous than one might think. It’s the equivalent of Scotty Pippin calling himself the world’s best basketball player as opposed to, say, somebody relatively unknown in the league.

More to the point, what exactly has GWB done to advance human rights (either abroad or domestic)? I can't think of a single positive thing, and I can certainly think of several negative things.

… just like Lincoln with Habeus Corpus.

Are you fucking stupid? There was open rebellion in the United States for fuck's sake! During such a time, suspending certain civil liberties are more than justified (what do you think they are in the Constitution for in the first place?).

Bush has helped remove Saddam and the Taliban. As I’ve said before, slaves’ lives didn’t improve all that vastly under Lincoln’s guidance than the Iraqis’ or Afghanis’ at this point in time. But both presidents laid seeds.

Lol, do you think simply replacing Saddam and the Taliban has somehow improved human rights? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The long term effects of the Iraq and Afghanistan aren't known and if you go on historical examples of nation building, the chances of success aren't great.

This is why Bush saying what he did was so stupid. If Lincoln had said right after he signed the Emancipation Proclimation that he had done more for human rights then any president before him, he would have been laughed at. Why? Because as of that moment all he had done was sign a fucking piece of paper. History judges Presidents of their actions and Bush is trying to write his own history before all the facts are in.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-01-14 02:46pm

You really don't have much of a grasp on reality do you? Bush promised the Kurds support, then decided to pull that support after the Kurds had already made their attempts at open rebellion clear. Without the US to protect them, they were slaughtered. It doesn't get much clearer then that.

And we decided to pull that support for what reason? I seriously doubt Bush declined to support the Kurds because he enjoyed watching the bloodbath that followed.

More to the point, what exactly has GWB done to advance human rights (either abroad or domestic)? I can't think of a single positive thing, and I can certainly think of several negative things.

Well, one regime known to harbor terrorists is out of power, as is one of the worst dictators of the twentieth century.

Are you fucking stupid? There was open rebellion in the United States for fuck's sake! During such a time, suspending certain civil liberties are more than justified (what do you think they are in the Constitution for in the first place?).

Lincoln never faced organized terrorism on the scale confronted by the United States today. Bush and his policy-makers are correct when they contend that we are terribly exposed. I accept their defense on those grounds.

Lol, do you think simply replacing Saddam and the Taliban has somehow improved human rights? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The long term effects of the Iraq and Afghanistan aren't known and if you go on historical examples of nation building, the chances of success aren't great.

This is why Bush saying what he did was so stupid. If Lincoln had said right after he signed the Emancipation Proclimation that he had done more for human rights then any president before him, he would have been laughed at. Why? Because as of that moment all he had done was sign a fucking piece of paper. History judges Presidents of their actions and Bush is trying to write his own history before all the facts are in.

I agree that Bush’s declaring it himself was stupid. I disagree that he is not a candidate however. You are correct that history will judge him, but it isn’t exactly if the playing field is all that strewn with other very obvious candidates. I’ve yet to see decent arguments for very many others.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-01-14 03:18pm

Axis Kast wrote: And we decided to pull that support for what reason? I seriously doubt Bush declined to support the Kurds because he enjoyed watching the bloodbath that followed.

Whatever you make think about Bush's motives, surely you know that he was the one who pleaded with the Kurds to rise up against Saddam in the first place? Try to understand this, he asked the Kurds to rise up prominsing them the full support of the United States. When they did, Bush pulled out and denied them any sort of support, thus condemming them to be slaughtered by the dictator that he left in power.

Can you really justify this decision?

Well, one regime known to harbor terrorists is out of power, as is one of the worst dictators of the twentieth century.

Worst dictators of the 20th century? Are you joking? Did you know that in the 80's Saddam actually recieved an award from the United Nations for his work in Iraq? He was considered by them and the United States in particular as THE benevolent dictator. It wasn't until we lost control of him that we decided to peg him as evil.

I am not a Saddam apologist, but surely you know that Saddam is NOT the worst dictator of the 20th century. He certainly wasn't a nice guy, but you can't even begin to compare him with the likes of Stalin or Hitler.

Lincoln never faced organized terrorism on the scale confronted by the United States today. Bush and his policy-makers are correct when they contend that we are terribly exposed. I accept their defense on those grounds.

Lincoln never faced organized terrorism on the scale of the United States today? Are you high? What do you think the Confederacy was seen as? The only difference between domestic terrorists and rebels are the amount of support and their numbers. Think about it.

I agree that Bush’s declaring it himself was stupid. I disagree that he is not a candidate however. You are correct that history will judge him, but it isn’t exactly if the playing field is all that strewn with other very obvious candidates. I’ve yet to see decent arguments for very many others.

That is because you don't want to see any decent arguments for the others in a feverent attempt to defend GWB.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-01-14 03:43pm

Iceberg: The supreme court ruled, in ex parte Milligan, that suspension of the writ of habeas corpus could only be done under specific circumstances. Lincoln grossly overstepped those bounds (it would be the equivalent of Bush pulling anti-war protestors off the street and locking them up without access to the civillian courts).

As far as Lincoln freeing the slaves, again read what he actually said. Slaves were only free in areas in rebellion against the federal government. Slaves in Union states remained slaves. Slaves in Union held territory remained slaves. It was not until after Lincoln is dead that slavery is completely finished in the United States (and the president who does pass the constitutional amendment does zilch to enforce it).

The blunt fact is very few presidents have great records in this area and if one had pick I think Madison would come out on top. Lincoln and FDR are mixed bags at best.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-01-14 03:50pm

tharkûn wrote: As far as Lincoln freeing the slaves, again read what he actually said. Slaves were only free in areas in rebellion against the federal government. Slaves in Union states remained slaves. Slaves in Union held territory remained slaves. It was not until after Lincoln is dead that slavery is completely finished in the United States (and the president who does pass the constitutional amendment does zilch to enforce it).

You miss the point of what the Emancipation Proclimation accomplished. It gave the anti-slave civil rights group something to rally around and in the end, it ended slavery. All of the talk about what Lincoln's true intentions were miss the point; history judges the legacy of a President based upon what he accomplished and what his accomplishments led to.

Good intentions are noble and if we were to judge who was the most moral President, we might come up with some very surprising answers. But none of that matters when looking at the legacy of Lincoln's administration which was the abolishment of slavery, a key turning point for civil rights.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-01-14 04:15pm

The anti-slave groups had things to rally around have you not heard of "Bleeding Kansas"? Hell what rallying cry was Licoln running on (with respect to the slavery issue)? No new slave territories.

Lincoln emanicipated slaves as a calculated move to destroy the southern economy. It had zero effect (nobody enforced it) and immediately following the war blacks were slaves in all but name (laws went on the books forbidding them from doing any work but farm labor, they were forbidden from owning or leasing property, etc.).

The official freeing of the slaves comes under Johnson's watch and would be his legacy (or more properly the legacy of the radical republican congress). Actually bettering the lives of former slaves is due to the massive radical republican majority in congress that struck down the initial black laws until political horse trading brought back Jim Crow.

Lincoln's REAL legacy is minimal. He fought the Civil War and freed (on paper) a bunch of slaves in the deep south. Far larger and more important strides were made by later presidents. When weighting the minimal tangible results Lincoln affected against his unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus he comes nowhere close to deserving the "best" title.

If we must use "historical legacy" as our measure then one cannot say that Bush doesn't deserve the title ... yet. We should, in theory, then weight to see what the final legacy of his policies has been. If the wildest dreams of the administration come true (a democratic Iraq leads to a democratization of the middle east and manages even to quell Arab-Israeli hatred) it would be a pretty damn spectacular legacy. I doubt such a thing will happen, but if we judge presidents by the effects of what they do it is far to early to rule Bush out.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-01-14 04:32pm

And lincoln never really had a chance to correct those laws, eh? Grant did quite a bit to fix it, however.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-01-14 04:41pm

When weighting the minimal tangible results Lincoln affected against his unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus he comes nowhere close to deserving the "best" title.

HB can be constitutionally suspended in case of a rebellion, which is what was going on.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-01-14 04:58pm

Hamel: No it wasn't I refer you to

ex parte milligan

Which categorically denies that Lincoln or even the congress had the consitutional authority to revoke habeaus corpus in the manner he did:

"This court has judicial knowledge that in Indiana the Federal authority was always unopposed, and its courts always open to hear criminal accusations and redress grievances; and no usage of war could sanction a military trial there for any offence whatever of a citizen in civil life, in nowise connected with the military service. Congress could grant no such power; and to the honor of our national legislature be it said, it has never been provoked by the state of the country even to attempt its exercise. One of the plainest constitutional provisions was, therefore, infringed when Milligan was tried by a court not ordained and established by Congress, and not composed of judges appointed during good behavior".

Power was granted to revoke habeaus corpus in times of invasion or rebellion, however that does not mean you can use said power to lock up detractors far from the battlefield. Seriously read the court ruling, Lincoln did not have the power he took.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-14 06:56pm

tharkûn wrote:*snip*

The racist laws put in place in the South in which blacks were no longer chattel slaves by Lincoln's leadership and direction, were passed after he was shot in the head.

(Just what tharkun expected Abe to do about it, I dunno.)

You're an idiot, how does that in anyway change his abolitionist political allignment or the fact he freed the slaves?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-14 07:01pm

tharkûn wrote:*snip*.

How does that contradict the Constitution?

The Consitution is a binding set of law governing the Federal Government--and it specifically states that habeas corpus may be suspended in internal insurrection.

The Confederacy was not recognized by the U.S.; it was an illegal internal insurrection.

Ergo, the Federal Government had the option of suspending the privledge of habeas corpus.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it limit that ability, or specify in which cases habeas corpus may be suspended. Once implemented at the Federal level, its effective across the entire nation.

Your bullshit red herring article addresses military courts in loyal states after the insurrection had been put down and after Lincoln's death. It has no impact on the currect discussion.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-01-14 08:10pm

"The racist laws put in place in the South in which blacks were no longer chattel slaves by Lincoln's leadership and direction, were passed after he was shot in the head. (Just what tharkun expected Abe to do about it, I dunno.) "
Which is why I DON'T give credit to Licoln for freeing the slaves. He put forth a legal fiction which had virtually no real world effect; the CREDIT for ending slaverly does not fall on Lincoln's watch. That honor is reserved for his sucessor (only by accident of time) and truely could be rightfully claimed by the radical republicans who had this quaint notion (which happened to be anathema to Lincoln) that black men should be equal to white men. It seems like a reasonable idea not to give credit to a man for something he never did

Why do you insist on crediting Licoln with the abolition of slavery when he never did it in entirety and when he did do it his motives were highly questionable.

"You're an idiot, how does that in anyway change his abolitionist political allignment or the fact he freed the slaves."

His abolitionist alignment is noteworthy, however NUMEROUS presidents had the same damn alignment (many of whom were harder abolitionists than Abe). It doesn't win any points towards being the BEST president in this regard.

Seriously look at what Lincoln did:
1. He freed slaves, on paper, in the middle of a war to disrupt the enemy's economy and win PR points at home. Please note for such an ardent abolitionist he neglected massive numbers of slaves.
2. He, more than any president since Adam's, pissed on fundemental liberties.

"How does that contradict the Constitution? "
Earth to Hamel it doesn't, what it says is that what Licoln did was illegal and a gross violation of basic rights.

"Nowhere in the Constitution does it limit that ability, or specify in which cases habeas corpus may be suspended. Once implemented at the Federal level, its effective across the entire nation. "
Yes it does. Suspension of habeas corpus is within the powers of congress not the executive. Did you miss that the suspension clause is listed in Article 1 and not Article 2? Or are you clueless enough to buy Lincoln's arguements that he can assume all the powers of congress when it is not in session?

"The Consitution is a binding set of law governing the Federal Government--and it specifically states that habeas corpus may be suspended in internal insurrection. "
By congress voting on the matter. Not by the commander and chief declaring martial law.

"Ergo, the Federal Government had the option of suspending the privledge of habeas corpus. "
Correct the federal government did. Abraham Licoln did not.

"Your bullshit red herring article addresses military courts in loyal states after the insurrection had been put down and after Lincoln's death. It has no impact on the currect discussion."
Actually no. Milligan was arrested before Lincoln's (Lincoln delayed his execution by direct order); it was simply resolved after the war. If you like we play the same damn game with ex parte Merryman in which the Licoln administration thumbed its nose at the supreme court and defied multiple court orders (and the whole case was during the insurrection).

Licoln accomplished relatively little, what he did do did not set precedent (slavery was still legal) or was found to be unconstitutional and generally was deplorable (i.e. jailing your political opponents when the protest a war you are leading).

[/quote]