Pretty sad....

[Utoo]

The Iwo Jima Memorial in DC/Northern VA is a giant statue of the famous picture of WWII soldiers raising the US flag in Iwo Jima. All along the base of the statue, there is a list of every war & conflict in which the American military has participated since the country's birth.

They've left a space about 4ft in height & 20ft in diameter blank---open to list more wars.

Realistic, maybe....but pretty sad all the same.

 

[U2democrat]

It's a beautiful memorial...of course any war memorial will evoke sadness, some more than others. As for future wars...we'll see when we get there.

 

[Utoo]

Yeah, definitely an awesome memorial. The "sad" part for me is the expectation of so many future wars....less of 'unhappy sad' and more of 'pretty shitty sad.'

 

[verte76]

That space represents the very real probability of more wars and more bloodshed. How depressing.

 

[Irvine511]

wars are a great way to further consolidate executive power.

i predict more.

 

[Utoo]

^ i mean

 

[nbcrusader]

wars are a great way to further consolidate executive power.

i predict more.

Is this based on any historical precedent?

 

[Irvine511]

Is this based on any historical precedent?

off the top of my head ... Civil War, WW2, and certainly the "Global War on Terrorism" and "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

 

[nbcrusader]

You indicated a "further" consolidation of power. Is this a progressive (cumulative) problem that builds with each successive administration (we've been in plenty of wars)? Or is it just temporary during those times of war? Do you fear future administrations use of war powers to increase their domestic power?

 

[Utoo]

I wouldn't necessarily say a continually increasing power; rather, an increase of power that is in excess of what is required during the time of war, and then often continued afterwards..until social change is demanded by the public or other branches of gov't. to return the executive to its equal level with the other two branches. The current wiretapping issue, for example... The issue isn't really if there should be wiretapping--it's whether it's legal to do it without a warrant. There hasn't been any evidence presented so far that shows that there's a need not to have a warrant. "Stopping" whatever may have happened in California is evidence that wiretapping may be useful, but not that it needs to be done without the proper checks and balances. That's all subject matter for a different thread.....but just an example of how "wartime" brings about the potential for the executive branch to overstep its bounds in the name of leading a "war" effort.

 

[Irvine511]

You indicated a "further" consolidation of power. Is this a progressive (cumulative) problem that builds with each successive administration (we've been in plenty of wars)? Or is it just temporary during those times of war? Do you fear future administrations use of war powers to increase their domestic power?

while a case can be made for the necessity of a consolidation of executive powers in addressing and assessing what needed to be done post-9/11, what has changed, in comparison to the Civil War (with the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus), is that we are now in an ill-defined, deliberately vague "war" that has been used as an excuse, repeatedly, for the violation of constitutional rights and civil liberties -- and this spills over into other areas of executive power beyond war administration.

some examples: the administration's refusal to release the records of Dick Cheney's secret energy task force; the docuemtns witheld on pre-9-11 intelligence; the documents on Katrina preparedness; the use of torture and the global network of secret prisons; meetings between Bush and Abramoff and Ken Lay; who leaked Valerie PLame's name and why; the Downing Street Memo; the cherry-picked intelligenced gained through CIA intimidation to justify the Iraq Invasion; the no-bid contracts with Halliburton; the dangerous underestimation of the Iraqi insurgency; the NSA spying program -- and, how about the records from the first Bush administration that W sealed on his first day in office.

it's less that any one of these -- beyond torture and NSA, which are hardly inconsiderable -- is something unprecedented, but rather the consistent and deliberate application of claims of executive privillege connected, directly and indirectly, to the "global war on terror."

 

[najeena]

I believe that this administration has used war for political gain, and will do so again, if it is allowed to. Some military action in time to affect the '06 elections wouldn't surprise me at all, thye're banging the drums already. Heartless and ruthless... that's our executive branch.

 

[nbcrusader]

while a case can be made for the necessity of a consolidation of executive powers in addressing and assessing what needed to be done post-9/11, what has changed, in comparison to the Civil War (with the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus), is that we are now in an ill-defined, deliberately vague "war" that has been used as an excuse, repeatedly, for the violation of constitutional rights and civil liberties -- and this spills over into other areas of executive power beyond war administration.

some examples: the administration's refusal to release the records of Dick Cheney's secret energy task force; the docuemtns witheld on pre-9-11 intelligence; the documents on Katrina preparedness; the use of torture and the global network of secret prisons; meetings between Bush and Abramoff and Ken Lay; who leaked Valerie PLame's name and why; the Downing Street Memo; the cherry-picked intelligenced gained through CIA intimidation to justify the Iraq Invasion; the no-bid contracts with Halliburton; the dangerous underestimation of the Iraqi insurgency; the NSA spying program -- and, how about the records from the first Bush administration that W sealed on his first day in office.

it's less that any one of these -- beyond torture and NSA, which are hardly inconsiderable -- is something unprecedented, but rather the consistent and deliberate application of claims of executive privillege connected, directly and indirectly, to the "global war on terror."

I'm not sure things have changed so much with this Administration as you would like to portray. We have not had a formal declaration of war since WWII – giving the executive branch the ability to define its use of military power. As for the title "war on terror" – it is akin to the "war on drugs" or "war on poverty" - a catch phrase for the public to grasp in its simplest terms.

And we have a history of deprivation of civil rights (Japanese-American internment camps), torture, selective use of intelligence, etc. over the last century as they relate to times of international conflict. The current exercise of executive privilege is based on a long history of the similar actions. The more you look at history, the more you realize things repeat themselves.

 

[Utoo]

As for the title "war on terror" – it is akin to the "war on drugs" or "war on poverty" - a catch phrase for the public to grasp in its simplest terms.

Ay, but the difference between the "war on poverty" and the "war on terror" is we don't have 2,000+ dead and 9,500+ missing limbs and with psychiatric conditions because they fought a war on poverty......

And we have a history of deprivation of civil rights (Japanese-American internment camps), torture, selective use of intelligence, etc. over the last century as they relate to times of international conflict. The current exercise of executive privilege is based on a long history of the similar actions. The more you look at history, the more you realize things repeat themselves.

I think that's why Irvine said wars are a great way to consolidate executive power.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm not sure things have changed so much with this Administration as you would like to portray. We have not had a formal declaration of war since WWII – giving the executive branch the ability to define its use of military power. As for the title "war on terror" – it is akin to the "war on drugs" or "war on poverty" - a catch phrase for the public to grasp in its simplest terms.

And we have a history of deprivation of civil rights (Japanese-American internment camps), torture, selective use of intelligence, etc. over the last century as they relate to times of international conflict. The current exercise of executive privilege is based on a long history of the similar actions. The more you look at history, the more you realize things repeat themselves.

Utoo answered this well, but while history does indeed repeat itself, it never repeats itself perfectly, and one thing that does make this administration different has been the opportunity for it to stack the SCOTUS with justices that have a long history of being deferential to executive power -- the most glaring example is Harriet Miers. and since judges have life appointments, we're going to see the reverberations of this for generations.

while you are correct about the Japanese American internment, i can't think of another time in history where torture has been an official policy of the US, the same thing with secret prisons across eastern europe, and the clear outsourcing of terror.

finally, doesn't it seem to you that the "war on terror" is deliberately vague, like the "war on drugs" is deliberately vague? we will never be without terrorism. we will never be without drugs. thus, since this is a conflict that has no end, we will not see the end of any administration's attempt to further the scope of it's powers, so long as we are engaged in the "war on terror."

i find this quite terrifying. and i think everyone, right or left, red or blue, should be worried.

 

[nbcrusader]

Utoo answered this well, but while history does indeed repeat itself, it never repeats itself perfectly, and one thing that does make this administration different has been the opportunity for it to stack the SCOTUS with justices that have a long history of being deferential to executive power -- the most glaring example is Harriet Miers. and since judges have life appointments, we're going to see the reverberations of this for generations.

Perhaps it is just luck of the draw, but most of our administrations run two terms - giving each an opportunity to make SCOTUS appointments. No difference.

while you are correct about the Japanese American internment, i can't think of another time in history where torture has been an official policy of the US, the same thing with secret prisons across eastern europe, and the clear outsourcing of terror.

Take a look back at our policies and actions during the Vietnam war. In many respects, our behavior was more objectionable then.

i find this quite terrifying. and i think everyone, right or left, red or blue, should be worried.

I am not saying we shouldn' be bothered - I'm just pointing out that history has ways of repeating itself - and does.

 

[verte76]

I think this Administration has used 9/11 to increase the power of the Executive Branch at the expense of Congress. The present spying controversy just shows how far they'll go in breaking laws to do this. The Supreme Court has seen two people who are friendly to GWB and the extension of executive power.