To let Iran go nuclear would be mistake: Cheney

[bevin]

Even if Bravus is NOT right, and they go nuclear, the status quo might still be working.

There is no solid evidence to support the idea that using threats/war to try to stop Iran going nuclear is better than letting them go nuclear - because these threats merely encourage even more countries to go nuclear.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

The idea that Iran having nuclear weapons will bring stability to the Middle East is based on the idea that we cannot believe what they are saying. They have been openly said they desire the complete destruction of Israel. They support terrorism in Israel. Yet some say it is just rhetoric that plays well at home but the powers that be do not favor it. That line of reasoning doesn't set well with me. I think when a nation starts threatening another nation, it needs to be taken seriously.

[bevin]

Actually "they" haven't = just the president, who is not even in charge of the place

Yes, we are threatening them - and they are taking us very seriously - as are all the other countries who are scared we might threaten next

/Bevin

[bevin]

By the way, which came first

• Bush labelling Iran part of the Axis of Evil, or
• The Iranian president making aggressive remarks about the USA and threatening Israel?

And did you see this...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070226/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

Quote:

TEHRAN, Iran - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faced a new round of sharp criticism at home Monday after he said Iran's nuclear program is an unstoppable train without brakes. Reformers and conservatives said such tough talk only inflames the West as it considers further sanctions.

ADVERTISEMENT

The criticism came even as new signs have arisen that Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is growing discontented with Ahmadinejad, whom he is believed to have supported in 2005 presidential elections

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Well, the US hopes that its threats are taken seriously and if the reports about Iran's President getting heat for his rhetoric are true, than perhaps it (US threats) are being taken seriously. That would be a good thing.

However I think minimizing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is less than wise. The fact that it plays well at home is unsettling. Tomorrow's headlines could just as easily read that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is out of power as it could read Ahmadinejad is. If Ahmadinejad has a lot of the people's support, that can go a long way in an unstable world.

I don't pretend to know more than is actually known about a matter. What is known for sure is that Ahmadinejad has a stated goal of the total destruction of Israel and many UN members are concerned about Iran's nuclear program.

[bevin]

Quote:

perhaps it (US threats) are being taken seriously

The US is not threatening them - the Bush Administration with its history of unjustified invasions is

Quote:

The fact that it plays well at home is unsettling

The fact that Bush's rhetoric played so well for so long before people wised up to how bad the intelligence and the analysis was is equally unsettling

Here is hoping that both administrations get tossed out in the near future, and replaced by sensible moderate ones

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

The famous Bush claim that Iran is part of the axis of evil is precieved by some as a threat.

The WMD rhetoric was going on long before GWB ever arrived in Washington. People only wised up after we actually invaded and were able to verify what was true and false. Hindsight is 20/20.

[bevin]

Quote:

precieved by some as a threat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil

Quote:

(Our goal) is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens—leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections—then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1796034.stm

Quote:

But according to Mr Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, the governments of Iran, Iraq and North Korea have now been "put on notice".

Perceived? It absolutely was a threat, and one that he promptedly made good on.

No wonder these countries are scared.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

Glenn Greenwald's blog post from yesterday makes the same point bevin is making here very nicely:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/23/ahmadinejad/index.html

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The US is not threatening them - the Bush Administration with its history of unjustified invasions is

The problem with this statement is that it lacks basic knowledge of American civics. The American system is one of checks and balances. The President's power is held in check and balanced by that of Congress and the Supreme Court. The President is limited to what he can do without Congressional approval. The only reason that Bush's labeling Iran as part of the axis of evil was a threat is because Congress knew it to be true. Don't let the SPINmisters tell a different story. The President could get away with doing missile strikes without Congressional approval but would never be able to invade without it.

[Bravus]

This is true, however the Bush Administration has also conducted an unprecented attack on these checks and balances. The doctrine of a unitary, almost omnipotent executive has been a hallmark of the past 6 years. Everything from wiretaps to signing statements has shown that this administration sees itself as having the authority to act outside the supervision of the other arms of government.

[there buster]

Quote:

The doctrine of a unitary, almost omnipotent executive has been a hallmark of the past 6 years. Everything from wiretaps to signing statements has shown that this administration sees itself as having the authority to act outside the supervision of the other arms of government.

That statement is nearly delusional. The President has always had the authority to tap into communications originating outside the U.S. Signing statements have been common. All this is puffery by his opponents who distort the historical record.

It's certainly forgivable that an Australian would not be versed in U.S. constitutional law, especially when partisan propaganda has been relentless in its distortions. All this has been thoroughly dealt with.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't think Bush's "attacks" are unprecedented. How many times did Ken Star have to go to the Supreme Court in order to force the testimony of some White House worker? Every President that has served since the War Powers' Act was passed has said they believe it unconstitutional. Challenging such things is actually part of the checks in the checks and balances. I was actually surprised when this administration testified in front of the 9/11 Commission without the Supreme Court forcing them to (not to say the Supreme Court would have).

[Bravus]

(to Ed)

The wiretaps were illegal, and were ruled to be so. The thing is, if the administration had asked the FISA panel they would have received permission with basically no questions asked, especially in a post-9/11 environment. But they did not ask, and it seems a reasonable construction to put on that that they were trying to prove the point that they did not feel they had to ask, despite what the law said on that point.

Bush has used more signing statements than all other presidents combined. Given that his party controlled both houses until just recently, that presumably is not because so much of the legislation coming to him for signing was against what he believed. His signing statements have essentially been of the form 'the president is not bound by this law', and he has used that power more extensively, not only than any other president but than all other presidents.

I could go through lots more evidence, but a wise man once told me 'there's no evidence that will convince someone who refuses to look at it'. I think it was you.

[there buster]

Quote:

The wiretaps were illegal, and were ruled to be so.

The 'ruling' by appeals court judge Diggs-Taylor is so embarrassing even those who like the outcome have criticized it.

Quote:

Bryan Cunningham served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush.

The Honorable Anna Diggs-Taylor probably means well. The lone judge in American history to order a president to halt in wartime a foreign-intelligence-collection program that has undoubtedly saved lives probably sympathizes with the journalists, and others, who are suing to stop the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in which NSA intercepts foreign-U.S. terrorist communications. She probably feels in her heart the program is wrong, and undoubtedly hears the footsteps of the federal judicial panel moving towards taking this case away from her and consolidating it with others.

We can sympathize with her motives, and even share some of her gut feelings of uneasiness about the program. But we cannot accept the stunningly amateurish piece of, I hesitate even to call it legal work, by which she purports to make our government go deaf and dumb to those would murder us en masse. Her bosses on the Court of Appeals and/or the United States Supreme Court will not accept it.

Quote:

Much will be said about this opinion in the coming days. I’ll start with this: I wouldn’t accept this utterly unsupported, constitutionally and logically bankrupt collection of musings from a first-year law student, much less a new lawyer at my firm. Why not? Herewith, a start at a very long list of what’s wrong with Judge Taylor’s opinion.

Quote:

Judge Taylor apparently needs no more facts than what she reads in the papers.

Worse, the judge clearly failed to do enough homework to understand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act itself, much less the Fourth Amendment. She gets basic provisions of the statute itself wrong, e.g., apparently believing that a provision explicitly dealing with foreign agent/non-U.S. persons communications constitutes an "exception" to FISA's warrant requirements. She also seems to make the elementary and fatal mistake made by many commentators, that the government can, under FISA, listen in on conversations for 72 hours without meeting FISA's substantive and procedural tests. This is simply false. NSA cannot lawfully, under FISA, listen to a single syllable of a covered communication until it can prove to the Attorney General (usually in writing) that it can jump through each and every one of FISA's procedural and substantive hoops.

More worrisome still are the judge's breathtaking mistakes in analyzing the Fourth and First Amendments, errors that would earn our first-year law student an "F." Here's one of several examples: The judge asserts that the Fourth Amendment, in all cases, "requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause." She cites no legal authority whatsoever for this colossal misstatement of the law, because none exists. Instead, there are numerous situations where our courts have found no prior warrant is required, so long as a search is "reasonable.".....

Lest there be any doubt as to whether Keith supported Judge Taylor's view about the warrant requirement for communications with overseas terrorist groups, the Keith court stated that "the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country."

So the case she cites, rather than supporting her contention, explicitly states it makes no judgment on it. OK next slide.

While Keith at least left open the question, a post-FISA case, also cited by Judge Taylor herself (In re Falvey), could not have more clearly dispensed with her claimed warrant requirement: "When, therefore, the President has, as his primary purpose, the accumulation of foreign intelligence information, his exercise of Article II power to conduct foreign affairs is not constitutionally hamstrung by the need to obtain prior judicial approval before engaging in wiretapping."

Gee that kinda reads like no warrant necessary doesn't it, maybe I need to put on my progressive blinders.

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (the appellate court set up explicitly to have the foreign-intelligence and national-security expertise Judge Taylor clearly lacks) did. Here's what it said (in 2002): "[A]ll . . . courts to have decided the issue, held the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.'

Ok now wait a minute, the very court that oversees FISA, which is supposed to determine legalities surrounding FISA says no warrants necessary. I'm sure I'm missing something, I mean she just ruled that this whole thing stinks in so many ways I couldn't keep track First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, FISA; let's see why she thinks this abridges those amendments

Judge Taylor spends a total of three double-spaced pages addressing the Fourth Amendment and little more than two addressing the First Amendment. Her reasoning, to the extent one can follow it, is little more than one would find in watching a surreal "Schoolhouse Rock" episode. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches. All searches without warrants are unreasonable (which, as noted above, is flatly wrong). Therefore, with no case support cited, Judge Taylor finds the TSP unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects free speech, which, defying the dictionary meaning of the word, she asserts the TSP "regulates." FISA prohibits targeting persons for surveillance solely for activities protected by the First Amendment (FISA, of course, being a statute, not a constitutional provision, and the administration having stated publicly they do not target individuals on that basis). Therefore, says Her Honor, the TSP is unconstitutional.

If you want to associate yourself with that absurd ruling, go ahead. No doubt, she will find herself in legal textbooks for generations--as a cautionary tale.

Much of the 'evidence' you site doesn't bear examination. And yes, I have examined it. In fact, I welcome all such 'evidence' for your position.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't see the laws that restrict branches of government as so black and white. While I do not support the wire taps this administration has done without the FISA court permission, I recognize that other Presidents, including Clinton and Carter, have done the same.

Congress could pass a law tomorrow that says the President does not have the right to to do "X". The President could veto the law and Congress could override his veto. If the President then did "X", would he be breaking the law? Or would he be challenging the law? It all depends on one's perspective. Let's say he does "X" and so the issue ends up before the Supreme Court and the Court rules the law banning "X" is unconstitutional. Then what?

What is deceptive and clearly SPIN, about the whole wire tap issue is that Bush did inform both House and Senate leaders, including Democrats, of the program. Why didn't any of these leaders tell him that he was breaking the law and needed to utilise the FISA court? It wasn't until the news leaked to the media that Democrats decided to make some political hey with it. That smells. Although, once again, I believe he should use the FISA court and I do believe unwarranted wire taps are unconstitutional.

To get a historical perspective, let's remember that President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and when Chief Justice Taney ruled the suspension unconstitutional, Lincoln and the military ignored the ruling. We are not dealing with anything like that today.

[bevin]

Quote:

The President is limited to what he can do without Congressional approval.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/guides/default.aspx?Article=whocandeclarewar

The president of the United States has no clear constitutional authority to declare war without congressional approval. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, does have the authority to recognize a "state of war" initiated against the United States and may in these circumstances unilaterally send U.S. troops into battle. President Bush has also stated that his powers as commander-in-chief allow him to act independently in defense of the nation.

...

The Constitution of the United States gives Congress alone the authority to formally declare war. But in several past conflicts Congress has relinquished this authority to the president. In fact, Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II.

Limited yes - but he gets to invade whoever he likes WITHOUT Congressional approval

The situation smacks of the rise of the Caesar's - especially when the elected Republican wimps rolled over and played dead for 6 years

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

The War Powers Act gives the President 60 days to act without Congressional approval. After 60 days, if Congress has not given their approval, the troops come home. It is noteworthy that the build up for both the first Gulf War and the Iraq Invasion took longer than 60 days and Congress authorized the use of force in both circumstances.

[bevin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

There is significant debate about its constituationity - and it is likely that Bush and Cheney both believe that they can ignore it if they want to

/Bevin

[Gerr]

What would happen if, without declaration of war or sending troops, just bomb their nuclear facilities? All we want is to stop their nuclear program, isn't that right?

Gerry

[bevin]

Quote:

What would happen if, without declaration of war or sending troops, just bomb their nuclear facilities?

So far the USA has restricted its one-shot strikes into other countries to be against things that we claim are (a) not really part of the government of that country and ( "terrorist bases" or similar nasty-sounding things

What would have happened if the USSR just bombed Los Alamos, but not NY?

What would happen if Al Qaeda just attacked the World Trade Centers but not LA?

/Bevin

[Gerr]

Quote:

What would happen if, without declaration of war or sending troops, just bomb their nuclear facilities?

So far the USA has restricted its one-shot strikes into other countries to be against things that we claim are (a) not really part of the government of that country and ( "terrorist bases" or similar nasty-sounding things

What would have happened if the USSR just bombed Los Alamos, but not NY?

IMO, there is a clear difference. We can easily retaliate with all kinds of weapons that could have reached the USSR; Iran does not. All they would be able to do is cloak-and-dagger operations.

Quote:

What would happen if Al Qaeda just attacked the World Trade Centers but not LA?

/Bevin

Again, we have the capability to pursue them.

Gerry

[bevin]

Quote:

All they would be able to do is cloak-and-dagger operations.

You are arguing that the effect of the strike is short-term and geographically local. It would not be.

Location

We hit Iran's nuke program, and EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD feels threatened - and feels the need to build a defense against us deciding we don't like something they are doing.

Duration

Many of the problems in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and other parts of the world are the continuations of conflicts that started in OT times.

Do you really think that, in one hundred years time, Iran is going to be restricted to cloak-and-dagger stuff. Remember they launched a rocket into space about a week ago...

We are making enemies for generations to come. We already have in Iraq. We have killed so many ourselves, and others indirectly, that probably every extended family in Iraq has lost a family member to Bush's folly.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

We hit Iran's nuke program, and EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD feels threatened

That is why such a strike needs NATO or UN approval. I would favor NATO.

A major problem with Iran is its rhetoric and support of terrorism. Those are major issues that cannot be easily dismissed.

[bevin]

Quote:

A major problem with Iran is its rhetoric and support of terrorism. Those are major issues that cannot be easily dismissed.

Gee - Bush thought we could fix the same problem in Iraq with a brief invasion, followed by flowers and dancing in the streets, followed by using their oil revenue to fix all their problems

You mean he was blatantly stupidly wrong?

/Bevin