Increase in military spending doesn't indicate fascism.
Parallel espionage network is a rather vague claim.
As for spying its not "when they choose", but rather an assertion that spying on international communications to suspected enemy agents doesn't need a warrant. I can understand why some people oppose this practice, but giving it significant weight in an argument that the administration is fascist is ridiculous.
Right to detain is asserted for captured enemy combatants, and is something we've always done to captured enemy combatants. When they aren't Americans traditionally no suspension of Habeus Corpus by congress was considered necessary, or probably unconstitutionally by the president (at least by Lincoln maybe others). Was Abraham Lincoln a fascist?
Seeking a specific definition of the exact limits of what is allowed by the Geneva convention is probably in the more general sense a good thing. Unfortunately the president probably wants to go routinely up to those limits, and if it means more abusive treatment that could be a problem. The whole treatment of prisoners issue, is probably your strongest argument. Still its a big stretch to say that America is a fascist regime (or even in the process of becoming one) because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded.
There are moves to get oversight lessened or removed altogether on matters of 'national security', as defined by the POTUS.
To vague to really be a meaningful argument, also its something that executives of most countries frequently try to a greater or lesser extent. Its nothing specific to Bush. The executive normally interprets the law and the constitution (if the country has one") in a very expansive way when it comes to executive power. Battles between congess and the president (or the legislature and executive in other countries) are far from rare.
The POTUS asserts, even as he signs laws into being, that he disagrees with them and should not be bound by them. His legal officials urge that this is a valid and binding interpretation.
Again not new. Jimmy Carter and every president since has done this (although I don't think it became common until Reagan), and I don't think Carter was the first.
In the words of Clinton's justice department defending the practice of making such signing statements -
" A third function, more controversial than either of the two considered above, is the use of signing statements to announce the President's view of the constitutionality of the legislation he is signing. This category embraces at least three species: statements that declare that the legislation (or relevant provisions) would be unconstitutional in certain applications; statements that purport to construe the legislation in a manner that would "save" it from unconstitutionality; and statements that state flatly that the legislation is unconstitutional on its face. Each of these species of statement may include a declaration as to how -- or whether -- the legislation will be enforced.
Thus, the President may use a signing statement to announce that, although the legislation is constitutional on its face, it would be unconstitutional in various applications, and that in such applications he will refuse to execute it. Such a Presidential statement could be analogized to a Supreme Court opinion that upheld legislation against a facial constitutional challenge, but warned at the same time that certain applications of the act would be unconstitutional. Cf. Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 622-24 (1987) (O'Connor, J., concurring). Relatedly, a signing statement may put forward a "saving" construction of the bill, explaining that the President will construe it in a certain manner in order to avoid constitutional difficulties. See Federal Election Comm'n v. NRA Political Victory Fund, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 27298 (D.C. Cir. 1993), at *11-*12 (Silberman, J., joined by Wald, J.) (citing two Presidential signing statements adopting "saving" construction of legislation limiting appointment power). This, too, is analogous to the Supreme Court's practice of construing statutes, if possible, to avoid holding them unconstitutional, or even to avoid deciding difficult constitutional questions.
More boldly still, the President may declare in a signing statement that a provision of the bill before him is flatly unconstitutional, and that he will refuse to enforce it. This species of statement merits separate discussion.(6)
In each of the last three Administrations, the Department of Justice has advised the President that the Constitution provides him with the authority to decline to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law.(7) This advice is, we believe, consistent with the views of the Framers.(8) Moreover, four sitting Justices of the Supreme Court have joined in the opinion that the President may resist laws that encroach upon his powers by "disregard[ing] them when they are unconstitutional." Freytag v. C.I.R., 111 S. Ct. 2631, 2653 (1991) (Scalia, J., joined by O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).(9)
If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.(10) And indeed, in a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Federal Election Comm'n v. NRA Political Victory Fund, supra, the court cited to and relied upon a Presidential signing statement that had declared that a Congressionally-enacted limitation on the President's constitutional authority to appoint officers of the United States was without legal force or effect. Id. at * 11."
usdoj.gov
Its true Bush has done this more often than previous presidents (affecting about 750 pieces of legislation compared to Clinton's 140)
The POTUS declares himself not bound to follow laws in time of war
He has made no such declaration.
and then declares a war with no declared nation-state enemy and no clear end.
Neither having a war against a non-nation state enemy, or not being able to see how you are going to bring the war to a successful conclusion in a foreseeable time frame is an argument for the idea that the government waging the war is fascist. |
