Want proof that oversight works precisely the way the Framers of the Constitution intended? TPMmuck has your proof.
April 15, 2008
February 12, 2008
Clinton Just Couldn't Be Bothered, Apparently
Today the Senate voted to grant retroactive immunity to telecomm companies that had previously broken the law as they cooperated with administration demands related to the its illegal and unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping program. This was without a doubt one of the most important votes the Senate will hold this year.
Let's take a look at how all three presidential candidates voted, shall we?
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) voted in favor of retroactive immunity. What a staunch maverick defender of the constitution!
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) voted against it. Well done, sir.
Sen. Hillary Clinton? Despite the fact that she began the morning in Northern Virginia, she didn't bother to show up.
February 11, 2008
Gitmo: Worse and Worse
As yet another Gitmo-related case heads to the Supreme Court, we're learning more and more about the lunacy of our detainee policy there. And no, this time it doesn't involve mistreatment of prisoners. This time t involves basics such as adequate record keeping and adherence to the rule of law. An excerpt:
Just consider that the government says it has seized hundreds of the “worst of the worst;” brought them to Guantánamo; subjected them to “enhanced” interrogation methods that may violate international and federal laws against torture and coercion, then denied them a day in court to challenge the facts the detention was based on. It has repeatedly claimed that the Cuban base’s operations yield “valuable intelligence information.” And it has attacked journalists who question its blunt assertion.
Yet has it assembled in one place all information about a detainee? No. The government is holding hundreds of men without any adequate record on why they are being held. This despite the fact that the government asserts that it holds annual reviews of each detention. Yet, the government continues to hold hundreds of men, the majority not as “fighters,” but because they have “some association” with an alleged terrorist organization. And the government insists that it would take “massive resources” to gather appropriate files.Stated baldly, this means the government is not keeping complete files about the core group of terrorism detainees—presumably some of the most valuable intelligence sources available.
This is not who we are. This is not what countless generations of Americans fought and died to defend. This is not who we are.
January 30, 2008
The Nuremberg Defense
The more I see of Sen. Whitehouse, the more I like. Here's his second try to get a straight answer out of AG Mukasey on torture:
At bottom, the administration's defense is no different than the defense used by defendants at Nuremberg. They failed there. Is there any doubt they should fail here as well?
Worth noting: The "we were only following orders" argument is also being used by the telecomm's and their supporters to justify a grant of immunity for their past actions.
Unconstitutional Behavior
This exchange today between Republican Sen. Specter and Attorney General Mukasey may not at first glance seem to settle much, but watch the body language of Mukasey and you'll realize there's something significant happening here. Specter explicitly states that Bush broke the law when he ignored the FISA statues, and Mukasey in response cannot deny it. He never explicitly admits anything, but it painfully clear that he knows he cannot deny it either. Watch:
I know its been quite some time since I blogged about all this, and to tell you the truth, its most because I'm just exhausted by it. The fact that the president knowingly and willingly broke the law became undeniably clear months ago, and I'm just not sure there's much more I have to say about it at this point. I don't care that he thought he was doing what was best for all of us. It was illegal, and he should suffer the consequences. That's a principle I would hold to no matter who was in the White House.
UPDATE: Another clarifying exchange:
"Shocks the conscious" is "essentially a balancing test." Wow. Good to know that the Bush Administration has fully embraced the idea of moral relativism.
So cruelty is acceptable if the benefits to society are great enough. Torture is acceptable if the information gathered is important enough. But all of this, of course, must be done in secret, so we must simply trust that those in power are weighting and balancing things appropriately. Big Brother knows what's best; surely that is obvious to everyone, isn't it?
Another Day, Another Signing Statement
Charlie Savage, the man who quite literally wrote the book on Bush's unprecedented and unconstitutional use of "signing statements," has an article in today's Boston Globe about the president's latest shenanigans:
WASHINGTON - President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.
"Provisions of the act . . . purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief," Bush said. "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."
One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."
The Bush administration is negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The agreement is to include the basing of US troops in Iraq after 2008, as well as security guarantees and other economic and political ties between the United States and Iraq.
The negotiations have drawn fire in part because the administration has said it does not intend to designate the compact as a "treaty," and so will not submit it to Congress for approval. Critics are also concerned Bush might lock the United States into a deal that would make it difficult for the next president to withdraw US troops from Iraq.
"Every time a senior administration official is asked about permanent US military bases in Iraq, they contend that it is not their intention to construct such facilities," said Senator Robert P. Casey Jr., Democrat of Pennsylvania, in a Senate speech yesterday. "Yet this signing statement issued by the president yesterday is the clearest signal yet that the administration wants to hold this option in reserve."
Several other congressional Democrats also took issue with the signing statement.
"I reject the notion in his signing statement that he can pick and choose which provisions of this law to execute," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. "His job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law - every part of it - and I expect him to do just that."
Pelosi is absolutely right about this. The constitution says that the president must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." He doesn't get to pick and choose which parts he'll execute and which he will ignore. This isn't even close.
Remember when conservatives used to yell and scream about how judges must follow the plain language and meaning of the laws as they were written? They never said it, but apparently they never meant for that same standard to apply to the executive.
Let me be perfectly clear about this. I do not care who is in the White House. I think Barack Obama will make a fabulous president, but I don't want even him to have this power. This one isn't even close. It is unconstitutional, and it must be stopped.
January 28, 2008
My SOTU Response
I won't be watching, but I read the excerpts of his prepared remarks, and one line in particular stood out:
“The secret of our strength, the miracle of America, is that our greatness lies not in our government, but in the spirit and determination of our people.”
If you begin from the premise that "all men are created equal" - and if we're talking about this country we clearly must - then this statement makes no sense. If our greatness comes from our "spirit and determination," from where do they come? Are we genetically superior to others? Clearly not. Does it come from a shared religious faith? Given the multiplicity of faiths that exist in this country, that cannot be it either. Is it something in the soil? Can't be, unless that whole "illegal immigration" thing is a big mistake. So what then?
The answer, of course, is that "the miracle of America" is rooted in our constitution. As Tocqueville so clearly understood, it was our constitution that gave birth to a complex and vibrant political culture, one unlike any other nation before or since. In America, everything becomes a political question, because in America, everything is political. We, the people, are both the citizens and the state. In America, there is no separation between the governors and the governor. In America, the government and the people are one.
Our constitution was and is unique because it was designed first and foremost to protect liberty. And yes, liberty is the key to our strength, but it was, is, and always will be a liberty preserved and protected by the constitution and the government it creates. That is what makes America great, no matter what this president might say.
UPDATE: A follow-on thought: If it isn't our form of government that makes us unique, what's the point of this whole "democracy promotion" thing? Isn't the idea that the structures of government and society matter the foundation on which Bush's entire "freedom agenda" has been based?
April 2008 (1)
February 2008 (2)
January 2008 (6)
December 2007 (5)
November 2007 (1)
September 2007 (2)
August 2007 (4)
July 2007 (4)
June 2007 (7)
May 2007 (5)
April 2007 (12)
March 2007 (38)
January 2006 (1)
Subscribe to this blog's feed
