Everything After - A 9.11 Youth Circle - "Unusual situation". . . or abuse of power?

In the months following Sept. 11th, the Bush administration has enacted sweeping new powers supposedly designed for security's sake. However, these measures have angered many people who see them as encroachments upon our nation's liberties, and an extreme centralization of government reminiscent more of China than of the US. Just a few examples:

1) The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) now has the authority to detain immigrants indefinately, without pressing any charges. The INS has used this power to hold more than 2000 people, without releasing any data about those individuals, or even telling their families where they are.

2) President Bush has issued an executive order that contradicts the Freedom of Information Act (FIA). The FIA stated that all presidential documents must be made available to the public within 12 years of the end of the president's term. Under Bush's changes, he need not turn over his papers unless he is taken to the Supreme Court and ordered to do so. (It should be noted that Bush and Cheney were both among the effort, in the first years of the FIA, to protect Tricky Dick Nixon's documents from being made public.)

3) Bush has refused to give the Guantanamo detainees POW status, which would protect them from torture and guarantee them humane treatment under the Geneva Convention. Instead he has billed them "unlawful combatants", which means they have no rights. (By all means, George, drag out the thumbscrews.)

4) Bush has single-handedly declared a "War on Terrorism", bypassing all democratic processes of check-and-balance. (Is this some kind of fast-track military authority we didn't know we had?) This is especially hypocritical considering the non-POW status of the Gitmo detainees, and the fact that the US never recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government. You have to have it one way or the other. Either it's war or it isn't.

So, to cut to the point: How much should we put up with? Is this, as Bush says, an "unusual situation"? Can it all really be in the name of security and freedom? Or is it, instead, an infringement upon those freedoms we hold so dear. . . and at what point do we have to call him King George?

Completely agreed on everything. One important factor on Bush though:

5)Military Tribunals. Any foreign national suspected of terrorism or having ties to terrorism can be taken by the military and "potentially be detained, tried, convicted and even executed without a public trial, without adequate access to counsel, without the presumption of innocence or even proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and without the right to appeal."

What happened to the Constitution? Someone could potentially disappear, be executed, and their family would never know. In the military tribunals, there would be no need for release of information (defenders of the m.t's say this is because jurors and releasers of the info. might face "revenge crimes" following), and only 2/3 vote is needed for a verdict and punishment. The standard of evidence is substantially lower than in public courts, too.

Thanks for mentioning the tribunals, Earache. Another great example of the gov't's bizzarre infractions on democracy. I don't think we should give up hope for peace, though. Otherwise we will have no motive to work. What we need to do is not go straight to Bush, but to focus on the opinion of the American people. Granted that our democracy has all but stopped functioning. . . however, never underestimate the power of numbers. I think if we change one person's mind our efforts will have been worthwhile. Thanks for the URLs, I'll look them up whenever I get a free minute.

Kallie-- After the Spanish-American war, when Castro came to power, he wasn't able to completely shake of the US, so he made a deal that we are allowed to maintain military bases on the island. So in a way we do own the Guantanamo facility, even if not rightfully :)

What's more, "unlawful combatants" was a phrase pulled out of thin air by the Bush administration! There is no definition of this silly term. Therefore not only do the detainees have no right, but the gov't has no specific rights and regulations. If the detainees were considered POWs it would be legal to hold them without charges for the remainder of the war. Nobody knows WHAT we are supposed to do with "unlawful combatants."

This entire "war" is being fought without definitions or distinctions. When does it end? How far is Bush authorized to take the conflict? Iraq? North Korea?! The idea seems to be that we will be in a permanent state of "war", so that Bush can continue to be the Commander in Chief, and stay above the fray, guaranteeing himself reelection in 2004. What a creepy thing to do. This has shown just how much of a megalomaniac Dubya is. Maybe it comes from being born in Texas. . . "everything's bigger". . .

Before i say what i'm going to say, i want to make it absolutly clear that I DO NOT support Bush whatsoever. But I think as far as the third point Kalidah made goes, Bush cannot legally give them POW status under the Geneva Convention becuase we are not in a war. In fact, with exception of Vietnam, I don't know of anyother President who has done so without declaring War. Secondly, I personally don't classify the War on Terrorism as a traditional war, becuase there is no defined enemy. And until we (the US) deploy attacks on the "axis of evil" (which i think was pretty gutsy of him to call it, and a little inappropriate), there is no defined enemy to be declared war on. Historically, this is not totally abnormal. For instance, in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War, congress did not declare war on Korea or vietnam, however, the President did. I am not arguing that Bush is not abusing his power, i think in reference to military tribunals he absolutly is. i just think asking for a declaration of war is a little premature, and I believe he was using it more as a term of speech, not as much in the traditional sense