Putin Dissolves Government

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070912/D8RJUT003.html

MOSCOW (AP) - President Vladimir Putin dissolved Russia's government Wednesday in a major political shakeup ahead of parliamentary and presidential elections, the Kremlin said.

The dissolution is expected to result in a new prime minister, who will be seen as Putin's choice to succeed him after he steps down next spring.

The newspaper Vedomosti, citing unidentified Kremlin officials, reported that Sergei Ivanov, a first deputy prime minister and a leading contender to succeed Putin, could be appointed to replace Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov.

Another first deputy prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, who is a top executive at natural gas monopoly OAO Gazprom, is considered the other leading contender.

Under the constitution, Putin has two weeks to propose a new head of government, which the lower house of parliament, the State Duma, then has a week to vote on. Russian news agencies said Fradkov would serve as acting prime minister until the vote.

Fradkov said he asked for the dissolution of the government because with elections approaching, Putin needed to have a free hand to make decisions, including those concerning appointments.

Parliamentary elections are scheduled for Dec. 2, followed some three months later by presidential balloting.

"You might be right that we must all think about how to structure the government so that it better suits the pre-election period and prepares the country for what will happen after the parliamentary and presidential elections," Putin said.

[Paddy]

See what can happen when the Chief Executive has too much power? 

[Ex-MA Hole]

Come on, we all know that would never happen here.





/sarcasm

[The Rabbi]

Come on, we all know that would never happen here.





/sarcasm

It's true.  George Bush has secret plans to dissolve Congress and declare himself President For Life if Hillary gets the nomination.  I know it's true because I read it on the Internet.

[K Frame]

See what can happen when the Chief Executive has too much power? 

Actually, this is what can happen when the chief executive HAS the power to dissolve the government.

That's right, Putin HAS that power under the Russian constitution.

To say that it's too much power, or too little power, only goes to show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the Russian political process.

But, not surprising that people would jump to conclusions and immediately assume that George Bush has the same plan. That would be kind of tough for him to do, given that Bush has no Constitutional authority to dissolve Congress.

[The Rabbi]

by Tim_Leslie

for iCorvallis.com

I had a nightmare late last month. It was triggered by a news report on Feb. 26 that Yoweri Museveni, Ugandas president since 1986 and already East Africa's longest-serving leader, had won reelection to yet another five-year term.

In my horrible dream, U.S. presidential adviser Karl Rove had heard the same news report. He was holding court in a White House meeting room, patiently explaining the situation to President George W. Bush and a bevy of administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Press Secretary Scott McClellan. As I tossed and turned, Rove laid out his evil plan. Heres what I overheard:

Rove: "So you see what Im saying here. This man, Yoweri Museveni, has been the president of Uganda for 20 years in a row. By law, there was supposed to be a new president this year, but Museveni paved the way for his reelection by ramming through a constitutional amendment to lift presidential term limits."

Rumsfeld: "Ok, I see where youre going with this.

Rove: "You do?"

Rumsfeld: "Granted, the guy sounds like a crook, but Im not going to bomb one more country for you until we waste Iran, Karl. I mean, there isnt even any oil in Uganda, and ..."

Rove: "Damnit, Don, Im not talking about bombing Uganda. Im talking about emulating them."

Rumsfeld: "Well why didnt you say so? We dont need bombs if you just want to emasculate them."

Rove: "No, no, no! Emulate! We need to emulate them."

McClellan: "That's a difficult word, Don. Karl's saying we should strive to equal the actions of the Ugandan president."

Rumsfeld: "Dont patronize me, you little smart aleck."

McClellan: "Who are you calling a smart aleck, you lying sack of dung."

Rumsfeld: "Hah, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You told more lies in todays half-hour press briefing than Ive told in 35 years of &"

Cheney: "Hey, knock it off, you chuckleheads. This is important stuff. Karls on to something here. Go ahead Karl."

Rove: "Well, I think its obvious what Im implying here. I think we should follow Mr. Musevenis lead and refuse to vacate the White House in 2008."

McClellan: "Pardon me, Mr. Rove, but thats impossible. The American people will never stand for it."

Cheney: "Thats exactly what you said when we started torturing Iraqi prisoners."

Rumsfeld: "Yeah. You said the same thing when we imprisoned Afghanis and Iraqis without granting them due process. You said wed never get away with turning our backs on the Geneva Conventions."

McClellan: "Well, you probably wouldnt have, if it hadnt been for Ari Fleischer and me working overtime to spin it."

Rumsfeld: "Right. The press guys get all the credit. If you ask me, we should replace the lot of you with military propagandists, just like we're doing in Iraq."

Cheney: "Thats enough, Rummy. Weve got work to do here."

Rumsfeld: "But Im not done with this impudent punk yet. I want to say that &"

Cheney: "I said shut up!"

Rumsfeld: "And what are you gonna do if I dont shut up, Dicky? Drink another six-pack and shoot me with your quail gun?"

Cheney: "Why you little son-of-a &"

Bush: "Now hold on there, fellas. Heh, heh. This is gettin a little out of hand. Let's all just settle down so I can understand what Karls tellin us. It sounds like hes sayin we should suspend the U.S. Constitution. Unless Im mistaken, it limits presidents to two terms, right?"

Rove: "Thats correct, Mr. President. Its the 22nd Amendment."

Bush: "Well, I think I have to agree with Scott on this. Its a nice thought, Karl, but the voters will take to the streets. My approval rating is already in the toilet. Whatll they do when they see us messin with the Constitution?"

Rove: "I used to worry about that, too, Mr. President. And then our little secret leaked out about our warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens. Thats when I learned how malleable our Constitution really is when our party controls both houses of Congress."

McClellan: "Malleable. That's another hard word, Don. It means 'capable of being altered or controlled by outside forces or influences.' "

Rumsfeld: "That's it. I've taken all the abuse I'm going to take today." (Jumps to his feet and stomps out of the room.)

Bush: "Haven't I warned you guys to take it easy on Rummy? His war hasn't been goin real well, and he's been under a lot of pressure lately. Ok, go ahead Karl."

Rove: "Uh, where were we?"

McClellan: "Our malleable Constitution."

Rove: "Oh, right. Now, I shouldnt admit this, but our program to spy on American citizens is a total violation of the Fourth Amendment. And yet, you saw what happened after it was leaked to the press. A few liberals got a bit huffy for a few weeks, and then the whole thing blew over. The public just didn't seem to care. Everyone went back to watching American Idol and downloading the latest Paris Hilton sex video."

Cheney: "I think you're right, Karl. Most people don't seem to care. And those that do will think twice before they criticize this plan. It's clear that our effort to label critics of this administration as terrorist sympathizers is working."

Bush: "President-for-life Bush. I like the sound of that. How soon can we start?"

Rove: "As soon as possible. In fact, March would be a great month to announce our intention to remain in office indefinitely. Hell, everyones so busy filling out their basketball brackets that the whole thing will be a done deal by the time the tournaments over. Itll be our own little version of March Madness."

McClellan: "And just how do you intend to sell this to the American public?"

Rove: "I thought youd never ask, Scott. Its quite simple, really. We just have to tell the voters the same thing weve been telling them all along. The nation is at war. There hasnt been an attack on U.S. soil since 9-11. President Bushs leadership is the reason. To change leaders now would put everyone at risk, and that would be unacceptable. In short, the president must remain in office indefinitely in order to protect the American people."

Bush: "Sheer genius, Karl. Its like that talking point we had during the 2004 campaign: If Kerry gets elected, the terrorists will hit America."

Rove: "Right. Its not a new message for us. We just have to amp it up a bit."

Bush: "This reminds me of that speech I gave back in 2000. Remember when I said, If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long as I'm the dictator. Heh, heh. It looks like I'm finally going to be the dictator."

Rove: "Uh, right Mr. President."

Bush: "Hey, when Im president for life, will they have to call me generalissimo? Ive always wanted to be called Generalissimo Bush."

Cheney: "We can talk about that later, George. Now let's get to work."

[mtnbkr]

Don't many parlamentary systems have that "power"?  I seem to recall it happening elsewhere as well and being a normal function of that style of govt.

Chris

[Paddy]

See what can happen when the Chief Executive has too much power? 

Actually, this is what can happen when the chief executive HAS the power to dissolve the government.

That's right, Putin HAS that power under the Russian constitution.

To say that it's too much power, or too little power, only goes to show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the Russian political process.

But, not surprising that people would jump to conclusions and immediately assume that George Bush has the same plan. That would be kind of tough for him to do, given that Bush has no Constitutional authority to dissolve Congress.

Nor does he have any Constitutional authority to initiate war.  Or perform domestic surveillance, or seize and detain any American citizen indefinitely without access to legal counsel or judicial review or suspend the Geneva convention and federal laws that prohibit torture, or establish military tribunals, or terminate treaties, or exercise any other override authority he sees fit.  Yet the Bush Administration asserts and exercises these powers.

There is no constitutional authority for the provisions of PA I & II (as Congress is also limited by the Constitution).  The usurpation of power won't be confined to the Bush Admin.  Do you actually think President Hillary {shudder} will practice restraint, or do you think she will move to expand those executive powers?


 

[K Frame]

"Nor does he have any Constitutional authority to initiate war."

Blah blah blah blah blah.

That's why he went to Congress and had them sign off on military action against Iraq.

Whoops, forgot about that, didn't you?

I'll tell you the same thing I told the schmucks who claimed that Clinton was going to do an end run around the Constitution to stay in office permanently...

Up the dosage, Kenneth.

[Paddy]

That's why he went to Congress and had them sign off on military action against Iraq.

Whoops, forgot about that, didn't you?

Of course.  How silly of me.  It's only the Congress who are not limited/subject to the Constitution.   

[SteveS]

Bush: "Hey, when Im president for life, will they have to call me generalissimo? Ive always wanted to be called Generalissimo Bush."

I kinda figured that he would want to be called el jefe.

[Matthew Carberry]

Technically it's the Vice President who isn't bound by the Constitution; being both Executive and Legislative, yet neither, at the same time. 

Schroedinger's Branch.

[MechAg94]

Nor does he have any Constitutional authority to initiate war.  Or perform domestic surveillance, or seize and detain any American citizen indefinitely without access to legal counsel or judicial review or suspend the Geneva convention and federal laws that prohibit torture, or establish military tribunals, or terminate treaties, or exercise any other override authority he sees fit.  Yet the Bush Administration asserts and exercises these powers.

Constitional authority:  already answered.

Domestic surveillance:  You mean the tapping of foreign phones that happen to call the US or the stuff approved by the secret court? 

detain any American citizen indefinitely without access to legal counsel or judicial review: 
     Do mean the guy who got his day in court? 

suspend the Geneva convention and federal laws that prohibit torture:  You mean the Geneva convention that doesn't apply to insurgents?  Which torture are you talking about exactly? 

establish military tribunals:  Nothing new about military tribunals at all.

terminate treaties:  So how do we terminate treaties?  They don't last forever do they? 

Where did you dig up all this stuff? 

[MechAg94]

All Putin did was kick out the PM and cabinet.  The title makes it sound like he took over as dictator for life.

[De Selby]

detain any American citizen indefinitely without access to legal counsel or judicial review: 
     Do mean the guy who got his day in court? 

Let's be fair: It's not like the administration willingly submitted to demands for Padilla to have a day in court.  The white house spent several years arguing exactly what you said above: that he had no right to judicial review, access to counsel, or anything.  Literally, no rights.

I don't buy the "no constitutional authority to do xyz" arguments at all.  There is simply no comparison to Putin on those counts.

But the legal fictions that had to be created to come up with the original guantanamo plan and the even more harsh treatment of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla were really outrageous-that's one area where the Feds actually got close to being "Putinesque" in my opinion.

[The Rabbi]

No, the gov't was on good authority.  They had a very good case with excellent precedents (see the German spy case from the 1940s).  The courts ruled against them.  That doesn't mean they didnt have a case though.

[De Selby]

No, the gov't was on good authority.  They had a very good case with excellent precedents (see the German spy case from the 1940s).  The courts ruled against them.  That doesn't mean they didnt have a case though.

The government was on good authority with that line of cases to try even US citizens in military tribunals-that constituted a decent argument.  It makes intuitive sense too.  Our own soldiers don't get the right to appear in civilian courts for many crimes, so why should combatants fighting for the other side get more?

What they were not on good authority to do was declare a class of persons to which no law, legal remedy, or right to anything whatsoever applied.  But that's exactly what they tried to do. 

The proper treatment of someone to whom the "lawful combatant" label does not apply is a criminal trial, and the case law would support making that a court martial as opposed to a civilian court.  Just as long as no one can be punished by imprisonment for life without any shred of legal process.

[The Rabbi]

So he had no rights.  So what?
He forfeited them by taking up arms against the U.S. without donning the uniform of a foreign combatant.  He wasn't covered under Geneva.  He wasnt covered under civil law.
Too bad.  Must suck to be him.

[De Selby]

So he had no rights.  So what?
He forfeited them by taking up arms against the U.S. without donning the uniform of a foreign combatant.  He wasn't covered under Geneva.  He wasnt covered under civil law.
Too bad.  Must suck to be him.

Well, that wasn't really the issue.  The issue is: How did we decide that this guy was actually an unlawful combatant, and that he therefore could be subject to any punishment we want?

Not being covered under geneva is one thing; being able to decide who isn't covered without any process whatsoever is another.  There is absolutely no legal support for a class of persons who get no legal process whatsoever, but who can still be jailed for life. 

If they're guilty, convict them of the crimes they're guilty of and toss away the key.  But it's dangerous to toss people in prison for life with no more than an administrative labelling.  That really does give the executive the power to throw people in prison for no good reason at all.

[Paddy]

I don't give a *expletive deleted*it about Padilla.  Wait until President Hillary {shudder} arrests the President of the NRA for some bogus terrorist conspiracy charge.  Or the president of GOA.  Or NRA members, for that matter.  Think it's a stretch?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I don't give a *expletive deleted*it about Padilla.  Wait until President Hillary {shudder} arrests the President of the NRA for some bogus terrorist conspiracy charge.  Or the president of GOA.  Or NRA members, for that matter.  Think it's a stretch?

  Yeah, I do.

If anyone else ever does what Padilla did, then I would expect (nay, demand) any future President to do to them what Bush did to Padilla. 

[Paddy]

I don't give a *expletive deleted*it about Padilla.  Wait until President Hillary {shudder} arrests the President of the NRA for some bogus terrorist conspiracy charge.  Or the president of GOA.  Or NRA members, for that matter.  Think it's a stretch?

  Yeah, I do.

If anyone else ever does what Padilla did, then I would expect (nay, demand) any future President to do to them what Bush did to Padilla. 

Padilla was on his way to jail, whether his status was 'enemy combatant',  'criminal defendant', or 'putz'.  What's  important is the power grab by the Bush Admin.  Bad precedent makes bad law and any unchallenged action that oversteps Constitutional restraints will come back to bite us.

But you don't care about that. Now. You will.

[De Selby]

I don't give a *expletive deleted*it about Padilla.  Wait until President Hillary {shudder} arrests the President of the NRA for some bogus terrorist conspiracy charge.  Or the president of GOA.  Or NRA members, for that matter.  Think it's a stretch?

  Yeah, I do.

If anyone else ever does what Padilla did, then I would expect (nay, demand) any future President to do to them what Bush did to Padilla. 

Uh, the question here is: How do you know what Padilla did?

You do realize that at trial, the facts he was convicted on were not related to a specific act or intended act of violence, right?

[BakerMikeRomeo]

There's a huge-ass thread about this on ARFCOM.

Read the articles about Putin "dissolving the government" carefully. "Putin's Government" means something entirely different than you think it means. It has a whole hell of a lot more in common with the term "Bush Administration" than what we think when we say "government".

He threw a bunch of his appointees out and replaced them in order to shake things up. He put a new prime minister guy in place to throw people off until he gives the nod to the next guy everybody is going to elect to be president because they liked Putin so much.

~BakerMike

Reading Is Fundamental.

[Paddy]

Read the articles about Putin "dissolving the government" carefully. "Putin's Government" means something entirely different than you think it means. It has a whole hell of a lot more in common with the term "Bush Administration" than what we think when we say "government".

The Bush Administration is the government; it does what it wants when it wants the will of the people be damned.