Bush's latest executive order (15 Nov 2001) ----Warren D. Smith------------------------ It appears G.W.Bush's latest executive order arrogates to himself absolute power. In short, Bush can have you kidnapped secretly and tried secretly and executed secretly (the trial being without possibility of appeal, allowing hearsay evidence, and with judgement being made not by a jury, but instead by judges appointed by Bush and reporting to Bush - ditto for the prosecutors - and requiring not unanimity but only a 2/3 majority to order your death; also your conversations with your lawyer can be wiretapped). Constitution? What is that? Could Bush be attempting to make himself the Fuhrer of the 4th Reich? (Hitler of course, was elected and then took over a democratic govt of one of the most powerful countries in the World, by similar methods. Hitler always had some superficial announced "rationale" for his moves, e.g. there was a patriotic reason for Germany invading Poland, etc.) I see no reason why not. Bush is already holding 100s of prisoners, whose identities are secret, for 1 month so far, on charges which are secret - if indeed those charges even exist. (I saw the figure 800 estimated.) What is the reason for that secrecy? That too is secret. A NY Times magazine story described what happened to one of those prisoners (whom they tracked down after he was released). He was arrested, flown across the country, and jailed for 12 days with no charges ever being made. The basis for this was that he had an Arab name, was Saudi, and had ordered plane tickets on travelocity for several other people with Arab names (i.e., his family). This is one of the most massive power grabs and violations of the constitution by a sitting president in the last 100 years. Bush already as governor of Texas had approved more total executions than anyone else in the USA over the last 50 years - but those executions were at least carried out as the result of non-secret trials, with non-secret charges, and with a jury. ---------- Later note: compare with the following notorious presidential abuses of power and/or the constitution. R.M.Nixon wiretapped his political opponents and threatened influential donors with IRS tax investigations. (He was eventually forced to resign.) But - he did not try to kidnap and/or kill anybody. Roosevelt interred thousands of people in camps, whose only crime was having Japanese ancestry, for years. But - he did not kill them, it was not done in secret, they could still be visited and could still talk to their lawyers without being wiretapped. And... Roosevelt's move was supported by a (bullshit) Supreme Court decision. (Eventually the US govt paid reparations.) So... in comparison, Bush's move seems more serious. The putative excuse for Bush's tribunals is supposedly that the regular US court system somehow could not handle terrorist trials. In fact, it has already done so. Plus, the total number of these terrorists on US soil is maybe 100. This does not seem a huge problem for the regular US court system to handle considering there are over 20000 murders in the US every year without any assistance from terrorists. So, the only possible reason for these tribunals (which entirely violate the constitution in numerous ways - guaranteed right of a Jury trial - violated - separation of executive and judicial branches - violated...) is a power grab by Bush in a cynical attmept to use terrorist-panic for his own ends. Bush in an earlier executive order had ordered that presidential records could be kept secret for long after an act of congress had said they must be made public. Its immediate application was: keeping the Reagan records secret. Again this order violates the constitution - the president is supposed to enforce laws duly passed by Congress (and signed by an earlier president) and cannot unilaterally overrule them. Both these executive orders are blatantly unconstitutional and both are consistent with the hypothesis that Bush plans an eventual Hitler-style dictatorial takeover of the country.