Why Doesn’t He?
Exerpts From Miles Mogulescu Blog on Huffington Post:
President Bush and his surrogates have proclaimed many times that opposition to the Iraq war is dangerous, demoralizes the troops, encourages the enemy, and threatens America’s chances for victory.
If Bush believes that opposition to the war threatens national security, why doesn’t he have the right to act against opponents to the Iraq war to protect national security? Apparently government agents have already spied on a small Quaker peace group.
Why then shouldn’t Bush have the power to wiretap the phones of Iraq war opponents from Rep. Murtha to Cindy Sheehan?
Why shouldn’t he have the right to infiltrate anti-war groups with government informants?
Why can’t he place agent provocateurs in anti-war groups to incite violent demonstrations in order to discredit the anti-war movement which is harming national security?
Since the President has the right to take all actions he thinks necessary to protect national security, why couldn’t he censor newspapers that oppose the Iraq War?
Why couldn’t he arrest Iraq war opponents, and hold them without charges and without the right to a trial until he decides that the “War on Terror” is over?
Taken to the extreme, why couldn’t he torture Iraq war opponents based on his signing statement to the McCain anti-torture Amendment which states that the President can bypass this law if he believes doing so protects national security?
I’m not saying that these things will happen. I’m saying that Bush’s theory of President’s unilateral war time powers could justify such actions and more.
President Bush and his surrogates have proclaimed many times that opposition to the Iraq war is dangerous, demoralizes the troops, encourages the enemy, and threatens America’s chances for victory.
If Bush believes that opposition to the war threatens national security, why doesn’t he have the right to act against opponents to the Iraq war to protect national security? Apparently government agents have already spied on a small Quaker peace group.
Why then shouldn’t Bush have the power to wiretap the phones of Iraq war opponents from Rep. Murtha to Cindy Sheehan?
Why shouldn’t he have the right to infiltrate anti-war groups with government informants?
Why can’t he place agent provocateurs in anti-war groups to incite violent demonstrations in order to discredit the anti-war movement which is harming national security?
Since the President has the right to take all actions he thinks necessary to protect national security, why couldn’t he censor newspapers that oppose the Iraq War?
Why couldn’t he arrest Iraq war opponents, and hold them without charges and without the right to a trial until he decides that the “War on Terror” is over?
Taken to the extreme, why couldn’t he torture Iraq war opponents based on his signing statement to the McCain anti-torture Amendment which states that the President can bypass this law if he believes doing so protects national security?
I’m not saying that these things will happen. I’m saying that Bush’s theory of President’s unilateral war time powers could justify such actions and more.
posted by Redboy at 7:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home