#23: Our Roles at their Polls
THREAD BEGAN: December 10th, 2004
BOB: Well, it seems everyone at the Blog is hoping for a positive outcome in the Iraqi National Election (while some are more optimistic than others). The real question though is:
---How hands-on should the U.S. be in the Iraqi Election?---
The CANDIDATES on the BALLOT:
Should the U.S. bar certain elements from running? Who exactly?
What about religious fundamentalists, radical anti-American candidates, former Baathist Party members, and Muqtada al-Sadr?
The AIR WAVES:
Should the pre-election media be censored / manipulated? How?
Should the airwaves be open to radical candidates?
Should the U.S. shut down papers that preach anti-Americanism, destabilization or lies?
The GOLDEN BOY:
Should the U.S. back a candidate... Openly? Financially? How?
ALSO:
Will this U.S. intervention backfire? Now is the time to make any last minute predictions about the election outcome or update your last one. (See Thread #4 for a refresher, details and previous predictions).
The Format Poll results are in (10 to 3): So, we will stick with this format, and not allow anonymous posts.
Welcome, to all new participants.
posted by Robert @ 1:32 PM
28 comments
28 Comments:
Bob, excellent questions and you have touched on the most interesting possibility of the Iraqi elections. What if they elect candidates that are strongly anti-American? Keep in mind that the elections in January are not to elect a President or Prime Minister, but rather to elect members of a transitional national assembly that will draft a constitution. The constitution will then become a referendum to be voted on by the Iraqi people.
I think the United States should write them a constitution like we did for Japan after WWII. We should establish the framework and then they can elect whoever they want.
I dont think we need to or should back a candidate/s. We need to accept who the people vote for and work with them no matter what.
Ben, Kyle + John:
So you're saying that if a member of Saddam’s old poker group or al-Sadr run on a platform of anti-Americanism and religious fundamentalism with the slogan:
“Together we will rid the planet of those meddlesome Christians once and for all and put our women back in the subordinate roles where they belong,”
And uses his dirty money and power to flood the media with complete lies and propaganda about us and the pro-western candidates, that we would just sit back and watch as the Iraqi people blindly elect another oppressive nut?
Hey this is your country now! Have fun guys!
What if a candidate arises that is more volatile & dangerous than Saddam? We didn’t invest 200 billion dollars and 1400 American lives just to replace one bad leader with another. Did we?
(I love playing the Devil’s Advocate, can you tell?)
Bob
that is what I am saying. the message has still been sent to rouge regimes that if you dont shape up you will be next. the people in power now in those countries dont care so much about the cause as they do their own power - which will make them think long and hard before they act against us
Bob, consider the $200 billion and the 1,400 troops a down payment. We're just getting started. The only platform the next "president" of Iraq can run on is "I will get the Americans out ASAP, praise be to Allah." I don't think it is going to be like Afghanistan where we will find a US friendly candidate.
ELECTIONS:
I still think they are going to go off when planned. I still think there is going to be serious flaws in the legitimacy. I still think everyone in Washington will praise its great success. I still think that there will be continued chaos (and from recent indications, maybe worse then I or anyone imagined). I still think we will begin our pullout of troops sometime this year.
That said, I think the elections should take place. I think what is most important is that the Iraqi's get who they want. Then we just have to hope that is not some crazy person. If that leader can rally a sense of pride to take control, while acknowledging that the election was flawed, and then by the end of the year the iraqi's can have another election w/ more involvement, then they may have a chance.
Although, it seems like a stretch. I would think that the new leader will not want to cede power quickly and would block a new election. Also, we have the problem of a new leader that is anti-western, anti-US....then what do we do?
Although I dont really want this to happen, but the cynical, i-told-you-bush-was-an-idiot part of me does.....what if Sadaam wins from prison. He has about as good a chance as Trafficant, to pull of the prison victory.
By the way, I am placing another vote for Ben as MVC, because he is obviously the only one w/ the real passion for his issues. He is still in here battling, for no reason, and when he is the only person on his side. Yet no Jay, or the other Bush supporters.
Trafficant got like 17% from jail in 2002....maybe Saddam can match.
It has been a little disapointing to see all of the other people who were on my side gone, but I will fight on, though it is tough being the only one here.
realistically we should try to silently fund a candidate. I remember I made a big deal about how horrible it is, but I have had a slight change of heart. I dont think it should be too significant, but I think we should balance our interests w/ the Iraqi's and throw some support around.
I mean, its going on in the Ukraine. We are seriously supporting the poisoned guy, but not publicly. I have read that we have staked a lot of resources in that election. (as is most of europe, and russia wants the socialist)
2 Problems:
1) We cannot have the Iraqi's know its who we want, or there will be problems. I dont really know how this stuff works, but I guess spys fund campaigns, I dont know. So we must make a calculated conservative decision of who to fund, because if its clear, we are in trouble.
2) Bush/Rumsfeld/Bremer are so bad at everything they do that they will fuck it up.
Bob, Ben, and anyone else interested:
I am studying for the bar exam now. Today, I am starting on Constitutional Law.
While I agreed w/ you before Bob, I never really knew how openly unconstitutional this war in Iraq is.
Its simple.
Congress has the EXCLUSIVE power to DECLARE war.
This power CANNOT be delegated to the Executive or Judicial branch.
It is very simple.
This is 3 lines of my 70 page Constitutional Law outline
Well, Congress DELEGATED the authority to the Executive Branch.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
So there are 2 issues:
1) Congress never had the authority to Delegate the power to declare war to Bush
2) Therefore, Bush never had the authority to go to war.
The thing is, everyone is to blame. Its disgusting that an overwhelming majority of Congress decided to violate the Constitution. Then, of course Bush has blame.
I almost want to say about this issue, that Congress is more to blame then Bush. But everyone was violating the constitution and should be held accountable.
This might be the biggest failure in our 'system' ever.
BEN and DAN,
You guys are both suggesting a very, very hands-off approach to this Iraq election. Do you REALLY believe that this administration will do what you are suggesting?
Hallelujah!
Thank God for Chuck…Finally someone has jumped on my ‘the war was unconstitutional’ boat. It has been sitting empty at the dock for months now.
But Chuck…you know how these war-hawks always get around that seemingly straight forward passage in the Constitution?....They call things ‘conflicts’ and ‘interventions and ‘liberty-fests.’ It drives me batty. I would still like to hear from Ben and Dan, whether or not they think that Congress’s vote to authorize force violated our Constitution.
By the way Chuck, Patty and I both laughed out loud at some of your Cheifsource posts. Nice work. I think your sense of humor and Kyle’s sense of humor mesh really well. If he is smart he will keep you on the staff.
...and Kyle is smart.
The War Powers Act of 1973 was what expanded the power of the President beyond the language in the Constitution. This act provides for the President to go to war without going to Congress first in three instances:
(1) a declaration of war against the US
(2) specific statutory authorization
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Clearly clause (3) is the one that gave the President so much power after 9/11. The Senate passed a joint resolution 77-23 giving the President authority to go to Iraq anyway. If the Senate had not approved the war then I think there would be a constitutional argument against the war in Iraq because the war has nothing to do with the attack on the United States.
Where Congress has failed is in their oversight responsibility of the war. Tenent, Bremmer, Rumsfeld and company have made so many mistakes and it is Congress's job to keep their eye on things and hold people accountable. Congress has failed miserably with that responsibility.
See I told you...Kyle is smart.
Kyle, while that is clearly where the power is claiming to come from there are 2 problems:
1) That Act does not override the Constitution
2) Therefore, Congress can still not delegate that authority. It is very clear to me that they did delegate the decision to Bush.
Either way, I agree of the failure in oversight, obviously.
I mean obviously they are going to claim 'national emergency.' And this is what I love about these fucking bullshitting conservative/strict constructionist politicians/judges. They pick and choose when to 'strictly interpret' and use the 'plain meaning'.
Does anyone in there mind think Scalia or Thomas would declare the war unconstitutional, because Iraq was not an 'emergency'?
At least Bob is consistent in his strict reading of the Constitution. These right-wing liars claim to only strictly interpret the Constitution, but in reality its only when it suits them.
I would also think reason #1 would apply because terrorists declared war on the US
this is a question, maybe someone can explain because i dont know - why would the war powers act not override the constitution? for ex., roe v. wade overrides the constitutuion, but it is not in there
chuck - as far as strict interpreatation, i guess i could say the exact same in reverse - why are "left wing liberal liars" only for the constitution as a "living breathing work of art that evolves" when it suites them - now it should be read as is when dealing with war.....your argument cuts both ways
Ben, I did some more reading on the War Powers Act. Apparently it was passed in 1973 by Congress to try and limit the power the President has to declare war because they were frustrated over Johnson and Nixon taking the nation to Vietnam without congressional approval. The War powers act was to limit the actions taken by a President to 90 days after which he would need to seek Congressional approval.
Apparently Presidents take their power to declare war from Article II, Section 2 which says "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."
http://slate.msn.com/id/1008290
Well, I still want to respond to Ben and Dan and Kyle's last emails but I have been busy. The last two days I was wandering around São Paulo looking for a room to rent. The city is really big (18 million peeps) and exhausting. I am whipped. So I will post something tommorrow. Peace.
Ben,
I had a long post typed up the other day, and then my computer crashed, so I have been missing in action. And i am pissed off about my computer.
Quick summary: Nothing can violate the constituion. No law, no lower court. So Roe v. Wade was just claiming that law to violate the Constition (right to privacy). So the no law can delegate congress's power to declare war. So if Bush claims the Act did, its impermissible. Now that law, seems to be reasonable and would be fine. But the far-reaching claim that we were under some imminent need/attack that we had to go to war w/out congress, that's unreasonable. I assume that law is there in case the President didnt not have an opportunity to go back to Congress for a Nation-on-Nation attack. Obviously not the case here.
Regarding consistency of Justices. (i am pissed because i had a good take, but now dont want to go thru it all again, so here i go)
Liberals do not claim to hold some master key to how to interpret the Constitution.
Thomas and Scalia do....unless it does not suit them. (see Thomas allowing historically black colleges, because they endorsed his appointment).
There are tons of examples of both sides being inconsistent w/ their affiliation to federalism or disdain for federalism.
So the key differenc is these jerk offs claiming that all they do is bring out a Websters dictionary and read the Constitution. Its an insult to everyone that has studied law (including conservatives).
Again, every justice (liberal/stevens, conservative/rhenquist, nuts/thomas) writes there opinions in accordance w/ their own interests or vision. That's fine. If they go too far, we can impeach them or ammend the constitution. But these dicks need to quit acting like they only 'strictly interpret'. Because they dont. That's the difference. A living breathing constitution just allows a 200 year old document to guide a nation for 200 more years.
Here is my favorite take: Constitutional law is interpretting the "felt necessities of the time." (justice holmes)
Well, I want to address the War Powers Act, but first I have so many points I have been dying to make:
#1: My favorite quote this post was from DAN:
“No, the US should not, and cannot bar any person/party from running. This would take away the very purpose of our being in Iraq, giving them democracy, and their freedoms.”
Was that the ‘very purpose of our being in Iraq,’ Dan!?! Cause I thought we went to neutralize the threat that Saddam’s WMDs posed to us. How quickly we forget!
#2: Then when I asked if we should interfere in the Iraqi election, Chuck said: “We cannot have the Iraqi's know it’s who we want, or there will be problems. I don’t really know how this stuff works, but I guess spies fund campaigns, I don’t know. So we must make a calculated conservative decision of who to fund, because if it’s clear, we are in trouble.”
I couldn’t believe my ears…a left-winger suggesting that we shouldn’t interfere with another country’s election process UNLESS we can do it without getting caught! Come again?
#3: BEN, you need to ask the lawyers about Supreme Court rulings’ effect on the Constitution. But the way I have always understood it is that the Judicial Branch’s job is only to interpret law…not override it, but to fill in the grey areas. And there isn’t a lot of grey in this sentence: “The Congress shall have power…To declare war.”
#4: I am still really interested in a response from BEN and DAN. I asked them:
‘Do you REALLY believe that this administration will take the hands-off approach [to the Iraqi election] that you are suggesting?’
Still no answer from the ‘Republican stronghold.’
Now my take on the War Powers Act:
Kyle already laid out the three cases in which a President can declare war without Congressional approval. Once again, they are:
(1) A declaration of war against the US
(2) Specific statutory authorization
(3) A national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
About case #3: Am I missing something? Is it not obvious that the clause is referring to THOSE WHO ATTACKED US?! If Bush had given us an ounce of evidence that Saddam was involved in anyway with 9/11, then fine…go get ‘em W. Hit him once for me, big guy!
But Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11. This makes clause three inexcusable in my mind.
Then like Kyle said, the Senate passed a joint resolution giving the President authority to go to Iraq anyway. He said, “If the Senate had not approved the war then I think there would be a constitutional argument against the war in Iraq…”
I also took this to mean that: Since the Senate HAD approved the war there is NOT be a Constitutional argument against the war. If this is what you were implying Kyle, I don’t agree with this one.
I tend to side with Chuck that the Congress has a lot of powers, but it absolutely can’t sign over its powers to the Executive Branch under any circumstances. That joint resolution was an unconstitutional blank check.
And using Article II, Section 2 to say that the President can declare war is crazy. It seems obvious to me: “The Congress shall have power…To declare war” and after they do that, who will command the troops? The President, cause he is the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. Not complicated.
But Ben went even further, saying, “I would also think reason #1 would apply because terrorists declared war on the US.” O.K. Ben, if the IRA declared war on the U.S. would that give Bush the right to attack Northern Ireland? What about Wales? It's the same general neighborhood and hell we can’t take any chances with matters of national security!
In closing, it seems to me that the War Powers Act was intended to limit the President’s war power (not expand them) in an effort to reestablish the crucial checks-and-balances that make our system so great. It intended to do this by spelling out the only exceptions to the rule. They were based on self-defense and situations when there just wasn’t enough time to hold the vote.
So which was Saddam?
The vote to Authorize the Use of Force was unconstitutional anyway you look at it.
The Senate did approve the War in Iraq 77-23 on October 11, 2002 by giving Bush the power, if Saddam failed to "give up weapons of mass destruction by U.N. resolution," to go to war. You may recall John Kerry saying "I voted for the war before I vote against it." This is the vote for the war where the Senate gave the president authority to go to war.
You can argue that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, has not made america safer, is a waste of resources, is a waste of the lives of US troops, has been terribly mismanaged, has insured that America will be the target of muslim extremeism for decades to come, and sucks ass. I don't think there is much debate on whether it was constitutional.
Kyle, maybe I am missing something or oversimplifying things. Could be. But here is how I interpret things:
The question before the nation in the fall of '02 was: 'Should we invade Iraq?' And it was Congress's job to decide, with a vote. Yes or No.
Instead, that joint resolution said:
"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
In other words: "We'll let Bush make the call this time."
I have never studied Constitutional Law, but that is just how I see things. Maybe Chuck can ask one of his Profs about it.
On a sad note, this Blog is on its last leg. I was shocked that it survived at all after the election. Jay has officially dropped out and the REP team is now a duo. After New Years I will start an internship in Sao Paulo and probably won't have any time for any Blog. So feel free to keep chatting, but I am out for now. We'll see what happens in 2005.
I'd like again to thank anyone who ever posted or read theMinuteMenOnPolitics. Peace.
Bob
I already said I think a hands off approach is the only thing to do. We cant look like we are interfering to much with the selection process. It is the only option, good or bad, and we have to take it.
Not trying to sound almighty or something, but no one should fool themselves. We are going to try to mold that election. No doubt. We just won't know.
So Bob, my take (much to your dismay) is that if you are going to do it, you mine as well not fuck it up. We all know this notion of 'liberation' and a 'democracy' is a load of shit. There is not going to be a democracy. So we mine as well make sure its not another terrorist breeding ground (which it never was until these republicans invaded a virtually harmless country)
Ben, you dodge questions like a pro.
The question wasn't 'what do you think SHOULD happen?' the question was 'what do you think WILL happen?'
I know that you 'think a hands off approach is the only thing to do.' But do you think this adminitration will actually do this?!
Just to let everyone know.
I have joined the ChiefSource along with Chuck.
You can check it out at:
www.chiefsource.blogspot.com.
Peace
Post a Comment
<< Home