Where I concur about secret programs that I cannot or do not know exist, I would have to disagree with you concerning Bush and that he has added checks and balances to his Executive programs.
First of all, He has violated Constitutional law by going to war with Iraq in the first place as evidenced by the findings of the Supreme Court, although be it, indirectly. Congress also violated Constitutional law by passing the power to declare war to Bush. The results of doing so resulted in Guantanomo Bay and the illegal seizure of enemy combatants, as verified by the Supreme Court recently. NYT June 13, 2008, “Supreme Court on the Guantánamo Bay, ruled 5 to 4 that the prisoners there have a constitutional right to go to federal court to challenge their continued detention.” Why did the Supreme Court find that these "enemy combatants" were being held illegally? Maybe the response by our new Attorney General gives us a clue.
Rueters, July 21, 2008 “Congress should explicitly declare a state of armed conflict with al Qaeda to make clear the United States can detain suspected members as long as the war on terrorism lasts, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said on Monday.” Why would Mukasey now ask the Congress to declare war with al Qaeda? The reason is that the war was illegal to begin with, according to the Supreme Court. By passing an ex post facto law, the Bush administration can continue with their legal activities such as torture, wiretapping, and the suspension of Habeas Corpus without impunities.
Mukasey, by asking the Congress to pass the ex post facto declaration, is also denying that this is a FORMAL declaration of war. Why? The answer is rather obvious. Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3 of the Constitution says: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. If Congress and Mukasey get caught with their pants down and pass an ex post facto law, they have again violated the Constitution of the United States. All these violations of the Constitution can be construed treasonable acts, by the way.
So what has this to do with Bush's Habeas Corpus? He did not start suspending Habeas Corpus until the Military Commissions Act was passed giving the government complete control on whomever they felt is an enemy combatant, that done in 2006 after Congress illegally gave away their checks and balances by giving the President the power to declare war. Now, how can we really have a check and balance when everything rides in the hands of the Commander in chief, including the ability to declare war and arrest anyone, American or not who he thinks may be an enemy combatant?
That brings up my final point. Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2 of the Constitution says: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Abraham Lincoln was the first to suspend Habeas Corpus because he had a full insurrection on his hand called the Cival War. Even then, a good argument can be made he should never have done so. Bush is the only other President and the last to suspend Habeas Corpus. For what reason? We were invaded by less than two dozen enemy, but it was some 5 years later after the "invasion" that Habeas Corpus was suspended. Why the long wait if the public safety was in danger? Where is the checks and balances to prove our public safety is in danger, so that the government and the military can take away our individual rights at the drop of a hat? Trust? Can we trust an administration who has countlessly lied to us concerning the Iraq war and Guantanomo Bay? Can we trust an Administration who illegally went to war and made an illegal preemptive strike on a sovereign nation? Those acts, in my opinion, are tyrannical and should never be trusted. No, Bush has placed no checks and balances in his Administrative programs, nor has Congress. They have illegally undermined our trust and put not only this country in grave peril, but have trounced on our individual rights in doing so. They have held high disdain for the checks and balances of the people, the United States Constitution, and replaced it with a promise to be good. Balderdash! I have only yours and their word that their new law that replaces the Constitution has checks and balances. Again, Balderdash.
