How Would The Founding Fathers Deal with the WOT

[Starbuck1975]

Disclaimer...this posting is not in support of Bush, but rather a comparison of how many respected leaders of American history have contended with the balance between Constitutional protection and the requirement for secrecy in protecting America...while the article does make a case in support of Bush, let's discuss it on the merits of the content.

Wall Street Journal Article

Benjamin Franklin (whose 300th birthday is today) would not have thought so. In 1776 he and his four colleagues on the Continental Congress's foreign affairs committee (called the Committee of Secret Correspondence) unanimously agreed that they could not tell the Congress about the covert assistance France was giving the American Revolution, because it would be harmful to America if the information leaked, and "we find by fatal experience that Congress consists of too many members to keep secrets."

Many on this thread often contend that the Founding Fathers would be rolling their graves over the WOT and the Patriot Act, yet Franklin and others are on record for what they described as tyranny of the masses...rather, a lack of faith in the ability of the common American to truly understand or grip the nuances of politics, particularly in the realm of national security and executive power...Washington in particular struggled with this concept, as he feared that the office of the President could quickly resemble that of a monarch...yet as Chief Executive, the President required the ability to wield the powers traditionally attributed to a monarch...a delicate balance indeed.

While the Constitution was being ratified in 1787 John Jay (later the first chief justice) in Federalist No. 64 praised the Constitution for giving the president power "to manage the business of intelligence in such manner as prudence may suggest." And of course Article II of the ratified Constitution gave the president the nation's "Executive power" and states that "the President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."

The Federalist Papers are a necessary read for anyone who truly wants insight into the Founding Fathers and their though processes...Jay's comments are often speculated upon, as he somewhat skirts the issue by using the rather vague language of prudence...some would argue that Jay entrusted matters of secrecy to the discretion of the President, a fairly bold statement.

When in the early 1800s President Jefferson hired foreign mercenaries to invade Tripoli and free American hostages, he did not inform Congress in advance. In 1818, when a controversy arose over a diplomatic mission abroad, House Speaker Henry Clay told his colleagues that since the president had paid for the mission with his contingent fund it would not be "a proper subject for inquiry."

Jefferson arguably provides the first example in American history of a President authorizing significant military operations without a Congressional declaration of war.

So it is clear that the Constitution's original intent was that the president had the authority to take undisclosed foreign actions to protect America.

This is a fairly bold conclusion by the author of this article...while I do not think that the Constitution provides for Presidential authority without checks and balances, the examples previously mentioned, and others, certainly illustrate that there is a precedent of Presidents wielding Executive power to achieve national security goals without necessarily keeping the American public informed...it sometimes seems that the only thing which offends the American public with regards to these decisions is when the President makes a mistake...that is not exactly a strong standard to make such judgements, particularly when you infuse the discussion with partisan bias.

 

[thraashman]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it is clear that the Constitution's original intent was that the president had the authority to take undisclosed foreign actions to protect America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The biggest problem with this statement by the author is that what is angering people so much about Bush's action is that it is NOT foreign action. It is largely action against American citiizens. If it had been completely foreign action, we probably would never have even heard about it.

 

[Meuge]

I think we should take this article with a POUND of salt, given that the founding fathers have left a pile of evidence which would put them at odds with nearly every aspect of Bush's treatment of the Bill Of Rights.

 

[Genx87]

I rather enjoy reading about censorship during WWII implemented by FDR's administation.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I rather enjoy reading about censorship during WWII implemented by FDR's administation.

And it was despicable, and there were a lot of other despicable things done during that period. It was found to be unconstitutional later, so I presume that it was meant to prevent that kind of thing from happening again. If it doesn't then I don't know why we have laws in the first place.

 

[arsbanned]

I'm sure Bush's actions will be condemned in the future. There will be a reckoning.

 

[BlancoNino]

Neither the republocrats or the demicans know how to handle the war on terror correctly. Only I do, but I'm not giving away my secrets.

I think it's important to look back at what president Lincoln did during the civil war. Warantless wiretapping, patriot act, etc...don't hold a candle. But back then people took wars seriously and didn't live sheltered lives.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Neither the republocrats or the demicans know how to handle the war on terror correctly. Only I do, but I'm not giving away my secrets.

I think it's important to look back at what president Lincoln did during the civil war. Warantless wiretapping, patriot act, etc...don't hold a candle. But back then people took wars seriously and didn't live sheltered lives.

Same secrets for dealing with that alien invasion? It is likely of no consequence to you, but your credibility took a hard hit with me on that one.

 

[Starbuck1975]

that the founding fathers have left a pile of evidence which would put them at odds with nearly every aspect of Bush's treatment of the Bill Of Rights

The point of the article is that careful analysis of that evidence, and other cues, would suggest, at least in principle, that many of the Founding Fathers would agree with Bush's actions...his leadership and exercising of those powers are another question entirely.

I think its more the case of a President acting decisively but ultimately incompetently...but nevertheless consistent with how other Presidents have handled similar episodes in American history.

As others have pointed out...Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower...all did, in one way or another, establish the precedent of Executive privilege...yet those Presidents we excuse, as their actions served what we now perceive as the greater good.

Honestly, I think a double standard is sometimes used against Bush, as there are some who are still pissed he won re-election...for those people, Bush could solve world hunger, and they would find something to bitch about.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

The dynamics of of then and now are so different though.

"rather, a lack of faith in the ability of the common American to truly understand or grip the nuances of politics, particularly in the realm of national security and executive power"

At the time, the average american did not have access to the nearly inexhaustable data modern ones do. The level of education, and access to resources was dramatically different. I assert that their "lack of faith' was justifiable, were as to imply that in today's atmosphere is arrogant and elitist. I'd go so far as to say that our present CIC IS the average american from an intellectual stand point. If he can comprehend it, then so can the rest of us

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Same secrets for dealing with that alien invasion? It is likely of no consequence to you, but your credibility took a hard hit with me on that one.

Hahaha, I was mostly kidding about the whole alien thing, but I don't think it's too farfetched. That's one of the biggest reasons we should never ever get rid of all of our weapons on earth...you never know if Aliens will come.

But anyway, that's off-topic, just thought I'd explain myself.

 

[kylebisme]

.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: thraashman
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it is clear that the Constitution's original intent was that the president had the authority to take undisclosed foreign actions to protect America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The biggest problem with this statement by the author is that what is angering people so much about Bush's action is that it is NOT foreign action. It is largely action against American citiizens. If it had been completely foreign action, we probably would never have even heard about it.

who,where....citizens or immigrant who are not citizens living in america???

 

[Starbuck1975]

At the time, the average american did not have access to the nearly inexhaustable data modern ones do. The level of education, and access to resources was dramatically different. I assert that their "lack of faith' was justifiable, were as to imply that in today's atmosphere is arrogant and elitist. I'd go so far as to say that our present CIC IS the average american from an intellectual stand point. If he can comprehend it, then so can the rest of us

The flip side to that coin is that the average American today is exposed to so much information, that it often hinders our ability to make a logical or even reasonable determination of what direction our nation should go in...throw in the myriad of special interest groups, and their propoganda laden agendas, and it has become somewhat difficult to distinguish fact from spin...even our news media outlets hold biases...the average American today may have access to more information, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are informed...just look at some of the posts on this forum by people who are apparently educated, yet trapped in a constrained worldview of partisan nonsense.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: thraashman
The biggest problem with this statement by the author is that what is angering people so much about Bush's action is that it is NOT foreign action. It is largely action against American citiizens. If it had been completely foreign action, we probably would never have even heard about it.

I disagree completely. First of all, we never should of "heard about it". Secondly, when you've got a closet full of frustrated liberals desperate to throw something out there... (nevermind the national security implications.)

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: thraashman
The biggest problem with this statement by the author is that what is angering people so much about Bush's action is that it is NOT foreign action. It is largely action against American citiizens. If it had been completely foreign action, we probably would never have even heard about it.

I disagree completely. First of all, we never should of "heard about it". Secondly, when you've got a closet full of frustrated liberals desperate to throw something out there... (nevermind the national security implications.)

Fair enough on the "frustrated liberal" count, but if the liberals are ignoring the national security implications, the conservatives are certainly ignoring the privacy and civil rights implications.

 

[Rainsford]

I think the Wall Street Journal article misses a big point here. Power, like everything else in government, is really about people and trust. If you study history, you see a progression of decreased executive power, most often as a result of abuse of that power. FISA came about because of rather impressive abuses of spying power in the first place. While this did indeed represent a decrease in executive power, the reasoning behind it is hard to fault. The rules were changed because it turned out that we couldn't trust the government to ethically use the power given to them. If the government had only used the much wider, pre-FISA, power to defend the US, FISA would never have existed in the first place. But as it turned out, they couldn't be trusted with that power, it became necessary to take it away from them.

For all their intelligence and vision, I think it's hard to directly apply the wisdom of the founding fathers to the modern America. We've had a few hundred years of lessons in democracy, and I think the piece of the puzzle that they didn't anticipate is that the men and women we'd elect to serve us would not have the same morality as they had. There was no need for term limits, because everyone up to FDR followed Washington's lead and didn't overstay their welcome. FDR's abuse of that custom, and the various power grabs he made in his long stint as president, showed us that we can't trust the president to not stick around and try and draw more and more power to himself, President Putin-style. So it became necessary to put down in law what existed simply as a custom in previous years.

As smart as guys like Franklin were, we have the advantage of history. And while Bush's supporters keep insisting that we can trust the government, history tells us that, no, we can't.