4 ms·

Not true. In fact, that's a pretty astounding statement. Executive power has expanded greatly since 9/11. The PATRIOT Act alone vastly expanded law enforcement

Not true. In fact, that's a pretty astounding statement. Executive power has expanded greatly since 9/11. The PATRIOT Act alone vastly expanded law enforcement capabilities. Law enforcement, of course, being of the Executive and including the DOJ. In fact this thread likely wouldn't need to exist if not for the expansion of NSL under the PATRIOT Act. Many of the rights that we ceded as citizens were given over directly to the Executive. Remember, the Executive branch is more than just the President, but includes all departments under his purview. I think if there is a myth it is among those who believe that nothing has changed simply because some of these mechanisms (such as NSL and FISA) did exist prior to 9/11. But, in addition to new powers, it is the expansion, interpretation, and application of existing powers that have also represented a large share of the power grab. This started with Bush after 9/11 with his adherence to the theory of the strong unitary executive. This is when we began to see the letters of his attorneys, which re-interpreted existing powers much more broadly and sought to justify unprecedented Executive actions retroactively. That there was never a trial indicates that they were, in fact, successful in their claims to additional power. Of course one can also point to launching pre-emptive wars as an unprecedented power grab--perhaps of the highest order. And, essentially, these powers continue to expand under Obama, up to and including the remarkable justification of drone strikes on American citizens.

rayiner 14y ago
This is mostly just "truthy." In reality, federal surveillance was dramatically higher during the Cold War (modulo improved technology), and the idea of the strong unitary executive dates to the founding of the republic. Stuff that you claim is "unprecedented" is anything but. The concept of "preemptive war" has no real distinguishing characteristic in an American history full of military interventions absent direct attack. There is nothing "remarkable" about the justifications for drone strikes against ostensible American citizens who have taken up arms against the U.S. and are not on U.S. soil. Skirting along a murky and untested line? Sure, but not "remarkable." There is no consensus among legal scholars on the issue, and it is not without precedent (there are records, of various reliability, of Americans who fought for the Nazis and were killed in the war).
- D9u 14y ago
  Further, and tangentially, the idea that I have to remove my shoes prior to boarding a commercial airliner, without any (I've never hijacked a plane before) probable cause, in the same airport that I once carried weapons through while in the service of the US Army, is a definite affront to my sensibilities, especially as a loyal American. Just because a small group of predominantly Saudi Arabian nationals hijacked some planes doesn't mean that I'm going to do so. There were hijackers back in the 1970's, but no one was subjected to such indignities as we are now. Before anyone mentions "the shoe bomber," how about "the underwear bomber?" Following the shoe removal logic, the next step is strip searches of all passengers prior to boarding, right? Someone might have some explosive underwear! /sarcasm
  - XorNot 14y ago
    By this logic you've just eliminated the point of all security screenings of anyone, anywhere, ever. Yet most people would agree that it would be foolish not to take some precautions when loading 300 people on a cigar-tube cylinder in the sky. It's worth noting that in the 1970s people weren't trying to commit mass casualty attacks with planes via the passengers nearly as often. Today, no one expects a conventional hijacking either.
    - unclebucknasty 14y ago
      By your logic, the extent to which we protect American ideals and freedoms is a function of what other actors do. Worse, it is the most egregiously abhorrent actors who would drive our direction most. The problem with this thinking is that it has brought us exactly to where we are today. It is a very slippery slope that can literally destroy the fabric of this country. There is no end to what can be justified under the pretext of security and we have already given up too many freedoms in the name of "security". I will omit the famous Ben Franklin quote regarding freedom and security, but it certainly comes to mind. Those who would argue that it is necessary to curtail freedoms and rights in exchange for protection, must acknowledge that what they presume to protect would be a wholly different America, and they must be well with this new America. To make that argument would be honest and a simple matter of opinion, but to suggest that we can continue on this course without fundamentally altering this nation is nothing more than illusion.

rayiner 14y ago

This is mostly just "truthy." In reality, federal surveillance was dramatically higher during the Cold War (modulo improved technology), and the idea of the strong unitary executive dates to the founding of the republic. Stuff that you claim is "unprecedented" is anything but. The concept of "preemptive war" has no real distinguishing characteristic in an American history full of military interventions absent direct attack. There is nothing "remarkable" about the justifications for drone strikes against ostensible American citizens who have taken up arms against the U.S. and are not on U.S. soil. Skirting along a murky and untested line? Sure, but not "remarkable." There is no consensus among legal scholars on the issue, and it is not without precedent (there are records, of various reliability, of Americans who fought for the Nazis and were killed in the war).

D9u 14y ago
Further, and tangentially, the idea that I have to remove my shoes prior to boarding a commercial airliner, without any (I've never hijacked a plane before) probable cause, in the same airport that I once carried weapons through while in the service of the US Army, is a definite affront to my sensibilities, especially as a loyal American. Just because a small group of predominantly Saudi Arabian nationals hijacked some planes doesn't mean that I'm going to do so. There were hijackers back in the 1970's, but no one was subjected to such indignities as we are now. Before anyone mentions "the shoe bomber," how about "the underwear bomber?" Following the shoe removal logic, the next step is strip searches of all passengers prior to boarding, right? Someone might have some explosive underwear! /sarcasm
- XorNot 14y ago
  By this logic you've just eliminated the point of all security screenings of anyone, anywhere, ever. Yet most people would agree that it would be foolish not to take some precautions when loading 300 people on a cigar-tube cylinder in the sky. It's worth noting that in the 1970s people weren't trying to commit mass casualty attacks with planes via the passengers nearly as often. Today, no one expects a conventional hijacking either.
  - unclebucknasty 14y ago
    By your logic, the extent to which we protect American ideals and freedoms is a function of what other actors do. Worse, it is the most egregiously abhorrent actors who would drive our direction most. The problem with this thinking is that it has brought us exactly to where we are today. It is a very slippery slope that can literally destroy the fabric of this country. There is no end to what can be justified under the pretext of security and we have already given up too many freedoms in the name of "security". I will omit the famous Ben Franklin quote regarding freedom and security, but it certainly comes to mind. Those who would argue that it is necessary to curtail freedoms and rights in exchange for protection, must acknowledge that what they presume to protect would be a wholly different America, and they must be well with this new America. To make that argument would be honest and a simple matter of opinion, but to suggest that we can continue on this course without fundamentally altering this nation is nothing more than illusion.