Video - Karl Rove gets Owned by Colmes?
Salt Lake City, Utah - ©2008 - The Deseret Spectacle
Karl Rove is usually a pretty cool character. This is one of the few times I've seen him get this flustered.
I'm not sure who this moron is who's sitting in for Hannity, but he is equally repulsive. "The Supreme Court has thrown an unholy mess onto the elapse of the administration with this - it's decision." It is stunning that upholding Habeas Corpus - a principle which predates the founding of this country and is considered pivotal to a free society - is being condemned by the right.
What is unprecedented here is the idea that the President is not bound by the law, the Constitution, treaties or tradition, and may detain anyone, for any reason, with them having no recourse, solely by declaring them an "enemy combatant." It may take a Democrat in office before Republicans rediscover the Constitution and get on board with upholding the law.
In theory, the President is supposed to be bound by the law, just like the rest of us. One is reminded of the Nixon scandal, when he famously stated that "When the President does it, it is not against the law." It can be argued that the whole idea of the Constitution is restrain and check power, so that nightmares like the Bush administration might be prevented. The sheer weight of Republican dishonesty, immorality and corruption is testing it to its breaking point.
Rove squirms under Colmes unusual backbone, pressing the point of whether or not war has been declared - a power granted exclusively to the Congress. Has war been declared? No. It hasn't. That is why Rove is floundering all over the place to rephrase a declaration of war as an "authorization of force," which Constitutionally, is not the same thing. Just as the "War on Drugs" is not a declared war, nor is the "War on Terror." This is an extremely important point. When war is declared, the Executive is granted extraordinary latitude for a finite period of time. This is precipitated upon the idea that the country is under a grave threat which will end.
The President and his cronies want to muddy this idea until we are in a perpetual state of war, with the Executive ruling by edict - the very definition of a dictatorship.
In any event, it's amusing to watch as Rove lapses into repeating talking points. They are, of course, typical, nauseating, Republican sophistry.
DS
Salt Lake City, Utah
The Deseret Spectacle is in no way related to the Deseret Morning News.
Letters to the Editor
Karl Rove is usually a pretty cool character. This is one of the few times I've seen him get this flustered.
I'm not sure who this moron is who's sitting in for Hannity, but he is equally repulsive. "The Supreme Court has thrown an unholy mess onto the elapse of the administration with this - it's decision." It is stunning that upholding Habeas Corpus - a principle which predates the founding of this country and is considered pivotal to a free society - is being condemned by the right.
What is unprecedented here is the idea that the President is not bound by the law, the Constitution, treaties or tradition, and may detain anyone, for any reason, with them having no recourse, solely by declaring them an "enemy combatant." It may take a Democrat in office before Republicans rediscover the Constitution and get on board with upholding the law.
In theory, the President is supposed to be bound by the law, just like the rest of us. One is reminded of the Nixon scandal, when he famously stated that "When the President does it, it is not against the law." It can be argued that the whole idea of the Constitution is restrain and check power, so that nightmares like the Bush administration might be prevented. The sheer weight of Republican dishonesty, immorality and corruption is testing it to its breaking point.
Rove squirms under Colmes unusual backbone, pressing the point of whether or not war has been declared - a power granted exclusively to the Congress. Has war been declared? No. It hasn't. That is why Rove is floundering all over the place to rephrase a declaration of war as an "authorization of force," which Constitutionally, is not the same thing. Just as the "War on Drugs" is not a declared war, nor is the "War on Terror." This is an extremely important point. When war is declared, the Executive is granted extraordinary latitude for a finite period of time. This is precipitated upon the idea that the country is under a grave threat which will end.
The President and his cronies want to muddy this idea until we are in a perpetual state of war, with the Executive ruling by edict - the very definition of a dictatorship.
In any event, it's amusing to watch as Rove lapses into repeating talking points. They are, of course, typical, nauseating, Republican sophistry.
DS
Salt Lake City, Utah
The Deseret Spectacle is in no way related to the Deseret Morning News.
Letters to the Editor
Labels: Constitutional Crisis, evil, Karl Rove, Military Commissions Act of 2006, Neoconservatism, Unitary Executive, video, White House Propaganda, wingnut, Youtube Safe
One area in which I totally agree with Alan Colmes is that the war is unconstitutional because the Congress never made an official declaration of war.
Rove is correct that we have not granted habeas corpus in conjunction with other wars. The question, however, is whether that is wrong. In general, I'm not sure. But specifically here, where Bush can declare anyone an enemy combatant--that's wrong and very scary.
Posted by
Frank Staheli |
August 03, 2008 6:52 PM