Segunda-feira, 22 de Dezembro de 2008

Cheney’s Unlimited Power Doctrine

Matt Corley observes Dick Cheney outlining his view of presidential power:

On Fox News Sunday today, host Chris Wallace asked Vice President Cheney, “if the President, during war, decides to do something to protect the country, is it legal?” “I think as a general proposition, I’d say yes,” replied Cheney.

Obviously, everyone would like the president to take action to protect the country during war. Indeed, protecting the country is good even during time of peace. But Cheney’s view of this matter is inimical to the idea of liberal democracy. Suppose President Obama feels that John Boehner’s neo-Hooverite opposition to economic stimulus is endangering the economy and playing into al-Qaeda’s hands, so he decides to lock him up in Gitmo? That would be extreme, of course. But every President feels, completely sincerely, that his policies are necessary for the security of the nation. And thus, every President feels that his opponents are endangering the country. And in the past executive branch officials have repeatedly been tempted to abuse their authority in order to persecute political enemies. Woodrow Wilson did it, Richard Nixon did it, and to some extent so did all the presidents between them.

And it’s important to recall that Cheney doesn’t think that there needs to be a declared war or anything to bring these wartime powers online. The mere risk of terrorist attack — something that it’s hard to image ever entirely going away — is sufficient.

Underlying all of this is an odd conservative lack of faith in democracy. Cheney’s implicit theory is that the democracies prevailed in the Cold War — surely a time of greater external threat — despite our liberal political systems. In fact, the openness of liberal democracy was a major strength. Robust political competition, a free press, transparency in government, etc. helped ensure that policy errors would actually be corrected and that corrupt practices would be curbed. Cheney-style autocracy works fine as long as nobody is ever incompetent or corrupt, but that’s never. And it certainly doesn’t describe the Bush-Cheney administration.


aqui


Autores
Alexandra Tavares-Teles
Ana Matos Pires
Ana Vidigal
Diogo Serras
Domingos Farinho
Fátima Rolo Duarte
Fernanda Câncio / f.
Filipe Nunes
Gonçalo Pires
Hugo Mendes
Inês de Medeiros
Inês Meneses
Irene Pimentel
João Cóias
João Galamba
João Pinto e Castro
Maria João Guardão
Mariana Vieira da Silva
Palmira F. Silva
Paulo Côrte-Real
Paulo Pinto
Shyznogud
Tiago Julião Neves

Arquivo

Isabel Moreira

Miguel Vale de Almeida

Rogério da Costa Pereira

Rui Herbon

correio | twitter | facebook

Fevereiro 2012
Dom
Seg
Ter
Qua
Qui
Sex
Sab

1
2
3
4

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26
27
28
29


artigos recentes

joão duque,

Populus in res publica su...

Os Cinco Pecados Mortais ...

Os Cinco Pecados Mortais ...

AT/DT

Todos os dias há uma nova

Hum, como falar do assunt...

Leituras: History Will Te...

João Fernandes no Reina S...

O tempora! O mores!

...

Antoni Tàpies (1923- 2012...

A bem da minha úlcera vou...

"Estúpido e irracional"?

International Day of Zero...

últimos comentários
Esta do reaccionarismo da ortografia tem graça A g...
Eu li! Eu li! Mas é mais um 'especialista' da bola...
bem explicado! e irrita sobremaneira a sanha contr...
Eu ate estava a gostar de o ler, mas depois chegue...
Não sou especialista nem tenho opinião inabalável ...
Não sou especialista nem tenho opinião inabalável ...
E o quinto "Reaccionarismo" : Portanto, depois de ...
Li até «direcões»...
Lamento informá-lo mas o seu texto tem alguns erro...
Quarto "Preguiça": Confesso que o artigo parece um...
arquivo
tags

todas as tags

outros lugares
Subscrever feeds