Repealing Bush's unconstitutional legislation

[bdf]

We all agree that Obama should repeal Bush's unconstitutional anti-constitutional legislation and executive orders, we just disagree on the order in which they should be tackled.

I would like to propose, only half in jest, that Obama should defer repealing the various bits of legislation which permit Bush to:

• Deem any American an "enemy combatant" without evidence or proof, requiring only the President's say-so.
  
• "Disappear" said "enemy combatant" to a secret prison with nobody else knowing what has happened to him.
  
• Ignore Habeus Corpus, allowing said "enemy combatant" to be held in perpetuity without trial.
  

Now I realize that the above powers are some of Bush's most egregious violations of the Constitution and of the rule of law, but I have my reasons for deferring their repeal. I hope that Obama would use such powers only in the most exceptional of circumstances (one such case is outlined below).

Here's why. It's pretty much guaranteed that Bush is going to issue blanket pardons for any and all crimes committed by himself and the rest of his maladministration. Obama can (and should) hold enquiries into Bush criminality that exposes all the misdeeds, but such enquiries would be powerless to impose legal sanctions.

And that's why Obama should defer repealing the legislation outlined above. After all the criminality has been exposed, and the public is disgusted that no prosecutions can result, Obama should "disappear" the lot of them, to be held in perpetuity without trial. It may not be justice, but it's poetic justice. It may taint Obama slightly, but he can claim he was only doing what his predecessor did. Well, he needn't even do that, he can just say that he has no idea what has happened to Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, Perle, Abrams, Libby, etc.

Then, and only then, can Obama repeal the above legislation. Of course, it would be politically embarrassing to release some of those already held under that legislation, so they'll have to stay disappeared forever.

As I said earlier, I'm only half joking on this. It goes against the grain for me to even suggest it. But to see those criminal fuckers escape punishment is too much to bear, especially if a full catalogue of their crimes is produced. I don't like the slippery slope of "this time these people really do deserve it" because I know definitions of "deserve" change depending upon how dictatorial the person making that definition. I dislike the idea because it keeps such powers in play when they should never have existed in the first place.

And yet I know that it would feel soooooo good to know that these fuckers had been punished. More importantly, it would act as a deterrent to future Republican administrations. These evil people have always taken the illegal behaviour of their predecessors not as a ceiling but as a floor—they always go further than their predecessors because their predecessors always escaped punishment. In that sense, Bush and the rest of them must be punished in order to guarantee democracy. And if Bush uses blanket pardons to try to escape punishment then we have to ensure he fails.

After all, who can better be described as having used terror to damage American interests and Bush? Who deserves most to be defined as an "enemy combatant"?

[jwirr]

1. The irony would be funny. They (pugs) wanted a dictator and NOW

they would have one.

[bdf]

2. This is what has me worried

Obama could do this with the illegal powers he'll inherit from Bush.

These guys have to be shitting bricks. Sure, he's a Dem, so unlikely to abuse those powers. Sure there will be Dem control of both houses and they'll be much harder on one of their own acting unconstitutionally than they were on Bush. But when we try to figure out what somebody else will do, a first approximation is to assume that he will do what we'd do in the same situation. And in that situation Bush and Cheney would abuse those powers (we know that because they already have, many times), so they're going to assume that Obama will do the same.

So that's why I worry that an excuse will be manufactured to declare martial law and to suspend the handover of the presidency indefinitely.

[jwirr]

3. I don't think he will use them simply because he is a constitutional lawyer

and believes in it. I trust him.

[bdf]

4. I think you're right

But that's because I think like a liberal. Will Bush and Cheney, who think like evil fucking bastards, reach the same conclusion? I doubt it. Which is why I think martial law prior to the handover is a strong possibility.