James Madison: The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments [The Federalist No. 51], Independent Journal, New York, Wednesday, February 6, 1788.
Showing posts with label checks and balances. Show all posts
Showing posts with label checks and balances. Show all posts
quote unquote: James Madison
James Madison: The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments [The Federalist No. 51], Independent Journal, New York, Wednesday, February 6, 1788.
Change Watch: Whaddaya Mean Obama Hasn't Done Anything?
As one quick to point to the gap between Barack Obama's rhetoric and his actions as chief executive (insert the words "Change Watch" in the search box at left for examples), I read with interest John H. Richardson's defense of the president in the November issue of Esquire. The current conventional wisdom about President Obama, he thinks, was captured by a headline on the recent one-year-anniversary cover of Newsweek: YES HE CAN (BUT HE SURE HASN'T YET). ** Or, as Saturday Night Live 
had it a few weeks ago, Obama's two biggest accomplishments thus far are "Jack and Squat."
Richardson argues that the prevailing sentiment that Obama hasn't accomplished anything may be the only example of real bipartisanship in America, ignoring that the right is convinced he has spent the last nine months installing an authoritarian communist regime rapidly stripping us of all we hold dear as a free people and the left is afraid he is bent on transferring national wealth and political power to the corporate elite. If the opinion that Obama has done nothing is bipartisan it is so only inside the Beltway and in the corporate media. With varying degrees of accuracy, voters on the right and left are afraid he's done too much.
Richardson's summation of the conventional rap against Obama could have appeared on Impractical Proposals: Obama hasn't exited Iraq, hasn't closed Guantánamo, is getting mired in Afghanistan, hasn't passed health-care reform, hasn't put people back to work. His obsession with bipartisanship is a sick joke.
"What a failure! What a splash of cold water in the face of all our bold hopes!"
(If it were really on IP, though, the bill of complaints would probably include references to the bailout, Timothy Geithner, too big too fail, executive compensation and bonuses, foxes managing chicken coops, the PATRIOT Act, renditions, habeas corpus, warrentless wiretaps, grotesquely large military appropriations, Pakistan, executive orders, signing statements, the media shield law ... but okay, fair enough).
Richardson thinks the conventional wisdom is wrong -- the word he actually uses is "insane." He asks that we "consider the record":
Similarly, if you believe that many of our political problems stem from the unconstitutional transfer of power from the legislature to the executive, even unarguably good outcomes, such as the changes to stem cell research and family planning policies, can be seen as doing further harm to democratic practice if they are secured by executive fiat.
And a "withdrawal" from Iraq that leaves "enduring" military bases, tens of thousands of military trainers and advisers, and an army of private contractors is no withdrawal at all.
Richardson continues with tips of the hat to "Sonia Sotomeyer, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the order to release the torture memos" -- what about the photos?, "...charter schools, his $288 billion tax cut, and the end of Bush's war on medical marijuana. Or the minor fact that he seems" -- I'm trying to stay out of Richardson's way here -- "to have — with Bush's help, it must be said — stopped the financial collapse, revived the credit markets, and nudged the economy toward 3.5 percent growth in the last quarter."
Richardson feels safe in predicting that President Obama is now a month or two from accomplishing "the awesome and seemingly impossible task of passing health-care reform." It remains to be seen, of course, whether the package that finally emerges from negotiations between the House and Senate is anything that can be described fairly as affordable and universal.
And, as they like to say in late-night commercials, that's not all. Richardson also awards Obama points for
"What's worse," Richardson says, "both sides are so angry and righteous that they can't even begin to give credit where it is due." I think he's right when he says that conservatives could be more appreciative about that $288 billion tax cut. And you would think the president would be getting a few more kudos from the right for McChrystal and Gates, to say nothing of AfPac and the drones. But to ask "how many liberals choose to be understanding about the practical difficulties of shutting down Guantánamo, achieving equal rights for gays, or tapping Al Qaeda's phones?" is to admit that the left has valid reasons to be unhappy with the Agent of Change. And to wonder "where, on either side, can you find a scrap of humility about the staggeringly complex challenge of Afghanistan and Pakistan? Or a scrap of gratitude at having escaped global financial doom?" is to beg more questions than Alex Trebek.
Our worries about how much Obama has accomplished in the year since we elected him are legitimate, especially considering the magnitude of the problems we face as a nation, and we are not only permitted to express our concerns but, as engaged citizens, we are obligated to express them.
** Richardson points out you "can find other versions of this perspective from Matt Lauer and David Gregory on NBC, from thousands of obnoxious bloggers, even from the hapless governor of New York."
had it a few weeks ago, Obama's two biggest accomplishments thus far are "Jack and Squat." Richardson argues that the prevailing sentiment that Obama hasn't accomplished anything may be the only example of real bipartisanship in America, ignoring that the right is convinced he has spent the last nine months installing an authoritarian communist regime rapidly stripping us of all we hold dear as a free people and the left is afraid he is bent on transferring national wealth and political power to the corporate elite. If the opinion that Obama has done nothing is bipartisan it is so only inside the Beltway and in the corporate media. With varying degrees of accuracy, voters on the right and left are afraid he's done too much.
Richardson's summation of the conventional rap against Obama could have appeared on Impractical Proposals: Obama hasn't exited Iraq, hasn't closed Guantánamo, is getting mired in Afghanistan, hasn't passed health-care reform, hasn't put people back to work. His obsession with bipartisanship is a sick joke.
"What a failure! What a splash of cold water in the face of all our bold hopes!"
(If it were really on IP, though, the bill of complaints would probably include references to the bailout, Timothy Geithner, too big too fail, executive compensation and bonuses, foxes managing chicken coops, the PATRIOT Act, renditions, habeas corpus, warrentless wiretaps, grotesquely large military appropriations, Pakistan, executive orders, signing statements, the media shield law ... but okay, fair enough).
Richardson thinks the conventional wisdom is wrong -- the word he actually uses is "insane." He asks that we "consider the record":
A week before he was sworn in, Obama jammed part two of the bank bailout down the throat of his own party — a $350 billion accomplishment.I'm not going to contest each of these assertions, except to say that they are a pretty mixed bag. If you think that the economic meltdown was about foreclosures and jobs not banks and Wall Street, then you may not see the bailouts as achievements, especially in the light of plus 10% unemployment and thousands of foreclosures and business failures. Even if you accept that the bailouts were necessary, you may be irked that the loot could have been handed over in brown paper bags, for all the strings that were attached.
Two days after he was sworn in, Obama banned the use of "harsh interrogation" and ordered the closing of Guantánamo.
A day later, Obama reversed George W. Bush's funding cutoff to overseas family planning organizations — saving millions of lives with the stroke of a pen.
Three days after that, Obama gave a green light to the California car-emissions standards that Bush had been blocking for six years — an important step on the road to cleaner air and a cooler planet.
Two weeks after that, Obama signed the stimulus bill — a $787 billion accomplishment.
Ten days after that, Obama formally announced America's withdrawal from Iraq.
A week later — we're in early March now — Obama erased Bush's decision to restrict federal funding for stem-cell research.
In April and June, Obama forced Chrysler and GM into bankruptcy.
In June, Obama reset the tone of our relations with the entire Arab world with a single speech...
Also in June, Obama unveiled the "Cash for Clunkers" program, a "socialist" giveaway that reanimated the corpse of our car industry — leading, for example, to the billion-dollar profit that Ford announced on Monday.
Similarly, if you believe that many of our political problems stem from the unconstitutional transfer of power from the legislature to the executive, even unarguably good outcomes, such as the changes to stem cell research and family planning policies, can be seen as doing further harm to democratic practice if they are secured by executive fiat.
And a "withdrawal" from Iraq that leaves "enduring" military bases, tens of thousands of military trainers and advisers, and an army of private contractors is no withdrawal at all.
Richardson continues with tips of the hat to "Sonia Sotomeyer, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the order to release the torture memos" -- what about the photos?, "...charter schools, his $288 billion tax cut, and the end of Bush's war on medical marijuana. Or the minor fact that he seems" -- I'm trying to stay out of Richardson's way here -- "to have — with Bush's help, it must be said — stopped the financial collapse, revived the credit markets, and nudged the economy toward 3.5 percent growth in the last quarter."
Richardson feels safe in predicting that President Obama is now a month or two from accomplishing "the awesome and seemingly impossible task of passing health-care reform." It remains to be seen, of course, whether the package that finally emerges from negotiations between the House and Senate is anything that can be described fairly as affordable and universal.
And, as they like to say in late-night commercials, that's not all. Richardson also awards Obama points for
Appointing a conservative Bush holdover like Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense.Richardson concludes by setting up a straw man -- the Vital Center -- and then kicking the stuffing out of it. You see, Obama is governing from the middle, so "[b]lame it on the Internet, on partisan politics, on the economic crash, on the legacy of war or Fox News or Michael Moore, but our vital center is getting stiff — and it is starting to stink." Somehow transferring trillions of dollars to the corporate class is a liberal project, or at least so he can seem to be bashing both sides equally Richardson pretends to think so, and expanding the empire is central to the conservative agenda, so both sides are just being churlish when they profess to be disappointed with the way policies that they find important are being addressed.
Appointing an establishment centrist like Leon Panetta at CIA [silencing in the process one of the strongest voices in the Democratic Party calling for CIA accountability for torture].
Appointing a hard-ass like Stanley McChrystal to head up our military forces in Afghanistan, despite McChrystal's dubious involvement in torture and the cover-up of Pat Tillman's death.
Increasing the number of drone attacks on Al Qaeda — more in the last year than all the Bush years combined.
Reinstating, with tweaks, Bush's military tribunal system for Guantánamo prisoners.
Fighting, in another unexpected defense of a controversial Bush policy, lawsuits against the "warrantless wiretapping" program — as recently as this weekend with a decision that a leading civil liberties group called "extremely disappointing."
Sending, way back in February, seventeen thousand more soldiers to Afghanistan. As Fareed Zakaira recently pointed out, this was just three thousand fewer soldiers than Bush sent to Iraq for his famous "surge."
"What's worse," Richardson says, "both sides are so angry and righteous that they can't even begin to give credit where it is due." I think he's right when he says that conservatives could be more appreciative about that $288 billion tax cut. And you would think the president would be getting a few more kudos from the right for McChrystal and Gates, to say nothing of AfPac and the drones. But to ask "how many liberals choose to be understanding about the practical difficulties of shutting down Guantánamo, achieving equal rights for gays, or tapping Al Qaeda's phones?" is to admit that the left has valid reasons to be unhappy with the Agent of Change. And to wonder "where, on either side, can you find a scrap of humility about the staggeringly complex challenge of Afghanistan and Pakistan? Or a scrap of gratitude at having escaped global financial doom?" is to beg more questions than Alex Trebek.
Our worries about how much Obama has accomplished in the year since we elected him are legitimate, especially considering the magnitude of the problems we face as a nation, and we are not only permitted to express our concerns but, as engaged citizens, we are obligated to express them.
** Richardson points out you "can find other versions of this perspective from Matt Lauer and David Gregory on NBC, from thousands of obnoxious bloggers, even from the hapless governor of New York."
The Senate Caves In Again to Bush on FISA
But the House shows a little moxie
The FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248), an "updating" of the 30-year-old law that authorized a secret court to oversee intelligence operations by federal agencies, sailed through the "Democratically-controlled" Senate on Feb 12.
Intended to "modernize and streamline" provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, "and for other purposes" (italics added), the act includes a section authorizing warrantless wiretaps of foreign-to-foreign communications and retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the administration to spy on Americans. The bill also states that the government will not need a warrant for foreign-to-American communications, with no privacy protections on the American end, and will allow the government to install monitoring stations in telephone and internet facilities inside the U.S., also without judicial review.
In effect, the statute provides retroactive immunity to government officials as completely as to the telecoms.
You could be forgiven for thinking that the Democrat's narrow majority was diminished by the defections of a few conservatives like Lieberman and Salazar, but you'd be wrong. The vote wasn't even close.
Sixty-eight senators voted for the bill; only 29 said nay. To put it another way, 19 Democrats -- 40% of the Democratic delegation -- joined Lieberman and the Republicans in voting to gut the Constitution.
Three senators couldn't be bothered to vote at all. One was Lindsey Graham. No loss there. But the others were the two liberal champions who seek to be the leader of their party: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
It's no wonder that millions of American feel disenfranchised by the current system. In the absence of party discipline, there is no downside to lying about who you are or what you'll do once you're in office. Voters pull the lever for a Democrat and wind up with a senator or a representative allied with the GOP and supporting a corrupt, incompetent and fascistic president. Why wouldn't they vote for Ralph Nader the next time, or just stay home? It shouldn't be a shock that more people vote for American Idol than for president; at least you can count on the likes of Kelly Clarkson, Ruben Studdard, Fantasia Barrino, Carrie Underwood and Taylor Hicks to deliver as promised.
The problem with Washington is not that it is narrowly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Nor is Federalism the problem. The problem is that the government -- all branches -- is firmly and utterly in the hands of conservatives. Nothing is changed by dispatching someone to the District for no more compelling reason than that s/he labels self a Democrat. We have to start choosing people who actually will take on the military-industrial complex, engage in the fight against poverty, expand democratic government, protect the environment, and rebuild the country's tattered infrastructure, regardless of party. We have to stop letting conservatives use the Democratic Party to camouflage their dominance of policy. There are no liberals in the Republican congressional delegation; why should conservatives be allowed to hide out among the Democrats? Party labels are just another way of keeping us from figuring out what's really going on.
Instead of sucking up to right wingers in order to cop the choice corner suites in the Senate office buildings, the Democrats should toss traitors like Joe Lieberman out on their Dumbo-sized ears. What has been gained by taking "control" of the Senate, beyond winning for the Democrats a share of the responsibility for the failures of George W. Bush and of the conservative majority that truly controls the legislative agenda? We would have a far more responsive, effective and democratic government if our elected officials were organized along ideological instead of partisan political lines.
With the White House already lost to the center-right, liberals, progressives, peace advocates, environmentalists, labor activists and such can more effectively deploy their time, talent and legal tender to reorienting the Congress than worrying over who's going to be president. Not that there aren't reasons to choose among them, but McCain, Clinton and Obama are more alike than they are different: none of them is going to tackle the radical adjustment in priorities needed if this is to become a just and democratic country. There should be no rush to choose one over another without getting concrete policy commitments in return.
In the matter at hand, for example, here is the list of nominal Democrats who voted with the Republicans to give the president the added power he craves: Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Conrad (ND), Inouye (HI), Johnson (SD), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Mikulski (MD), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Rockefeller (WV) -- the bill's sponsor, Salazar (CO), Pryor (AR), Webb (VA) and Whitehouse (D-RI). I'm not saying protecting your rights as citizens should be the only thing on your mind when you vote, but at least it ought to be a consideration.
Besides, many of these names -- Baucus, Casey, Conrad, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, the Nelson boys, Lincoln, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar -- come up over and over again as stalwart defenders of corporate interests and opponents of economic reform. Put a hand on your wallet and look around for a progressive alternative the next time they come conning for support in your precinct.
The list should give us pause in other ways. It turns out that a candidate's opposition to the war du jour may be an insufficient reason to endorse him if his objection to the conflict is that it has been mismanaged, the position of many corporatist Democrats, Jim Webb apparently among them. By the same token, it is hard to see what was gained by replacing the last liberal Republican, Lincoln Chafee, with the conservative Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse (another possible warning flag to keep in mind this particular election season: the Rhode Island Democrat's campaign slogan was "Change the Senate").
In 2006, the Democratic Senate and House election committees systematically supported conservatives against candidates who ran on such issues as peace and economic justice. With many more progressives in primary races this time than last, activists need to be on the alert for a reappearance of similar tactics in upcoming contests.
The news isn't all bad.
Although the president was at his fearmongering worst last week, in a rare demonstration of backbone, the leadership in the House, balking at shielding phone carriers from privacy lawsuits and at warrantless and unwarranted surveillance of American citizens by their government -- took a two-week Presidents' Day vacation without reauthorizing last summer's temporary domestic wiretapping law.
"By blocking this piece of legislation, our country is more in danger of an attack," Bush said of the House's presumption. "By not giving the professionals the tools they need, it's going to be a lot harder to do the job we need to be able to defend America."
The temporary provisions are set to expire at midnight tonight, but Democrats argued that the basic law will remain in effect and that the president wittingly manufactured the confrontation by threatening to veto a short-term extension that was intended to permit the Senate and House time to deliberate responsibly on revising FISA permanently. "He knows that the underlying 'intelligence' law and the power given to him in the Protect America Act give him sufficient authority to do all of the surveillance and collecting that he needs to do in order to protect the American people," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told The New York Times on Thursday.
In response to Bush's accusation that Democrats are imperiling the nation's security, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer accused the president of "fear mongering."
"After refusing to extend current law, the president repeated today his untenable and irresponsible claim that our national security will be jeopardized unless the House immediately rubber-stamps a Senate bill," Hoyer said. "In fact, a wide range of national security experts has made clear that the president and the intelligence community have all the tools they need to protect our nation."
"This is not about protecting Americans," added Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the House Democratic Caucus, on Friday. "The president just wants to protect American telephone companies."
If the bill is so vital, some Democrats wondered, why not sign the measure without the telecoms' "Get Out of Jail Free" card and let the phone companies off the hook with separate legislation?
Whether the rare display of gumption by House leaders is evidence that the Democrats are ready at last to take on the worst excesses of the president remains to be seen. But so low are our expectations by now that it was gratifying to see them display even the faintest profile of courage, notwithstanding that to do it they had to get out of town.
Countdown Special Comment on FISA: President Bush Is A Liar And A Fascist by Keith Olberman (CrooksAndLiars.com, 2008-02-14)
Putting the president above the law (International Herald Tribune, 2008-02-10)
Bush Says Congress Putting US in Danger (AP/NYTimes, 2008-02-15)
Update: House Democrats reject telecom amnesty, warrantless surveillance
The House approved a new FISA bill that denies retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecoms and which refuses to grant most of the new powers for the President to spy on Americans without warrants. It passed comfortably, by a 213-197 margin. (Salon.com, 2008-03-14)
The FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248), an "updating" of the 30-year-old law that authorized a secret court to oversee intelligence operations by federal agencies, sailed through the "Democratically-controlled" Senate on Feb 12.
Intended to "modernize and streamline" provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, "and for other purposes" (italics added), the act includes a section authorizing warrantless wiretaps of foreign-to-foreign communications and retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the administration to spy on Americans. The bill also states that the government will not need a warrant for foreign-to-American communications, with no privacy protections on the American end, and will allow the government to install monitoring stations in telephone and internet facilities inside the U.S., also without judicial review.
In effect, the statute provides retroactive immunity to government officials as completely as to the telecoms.
You could be forgiven for thinking that the Democrat's narrow majority was diminished by the defections of a few conservatives like Lieberman and Salazar, but you'd be wrong. The vote wasn't even close.
Sixty-eight senators voted for the bill; only 29 said nay. To put it another way, 19 Democrats -- 40% of the Democratic delegation -- joined Lieberman and the Republicans in voting to gut the Constitution.
Three senators couldn't be bothered to vote at all. One was Lindsey Graham. No loss there. But the others were the two liberal champions who seek to be the leader of their party: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
It's no wonder that millions of American feel disenfranchised by the current system. In the absence of party discipline, there is no downside to lying about who you are or what you'll do once you're in office. Voters pull the lever for a Democrat and wind up with a senator or a representative allied with the GOP and supporting a corrupt, incompetent and fascistic president. Why wouldn't they vote for Ralph Nader the next time, or just stay home? It shouldn't be a shock that more people vote for American Idol than for president; at least you can count on the likes of Kelly Clarkson, Ruben Studdard, Fantasia Barrino, Carrie Underwood and Taylor Hicks to deliver as promised.
The problem with Washington is not that it is narrowly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Nor is Federalism the problem. The problem is that the government -- all branches -- is firmly and utterly in the hands of conservatives. Nothing is changed by dispatching someone to the District for no more compelling reason than that s/he labels self a Democrat. We have to start choosing people who actually will take on the military-industrial complex, engage in the fight against poverty, expand democratic government, protect the environment, and rebuild the country's tattered infrastructure, regardless of party. We have to stop letting conservatives use the Democratic Party to camouflage their dominance of policy. There are no liberals in the Republican congressional delegation; why should conservatives be allowed to hide out among the Democrats? Party labels are just another way of keeping us from figuring out what's really going on.
Instead of sucking up to right wingers in order to cop the choice corner suites in the Senate office buildings, the Democrats should toss traitors like Joe Lieberman out on their Dumbo-sized ears. What has been gained by taking "control" of the Senate, beyond winning for the Democrats a share of the responsibility for the failures of George W. Bush and of the conservative majority that truly controls the legislative agenda? We would have a far more responsive, effective and democratic government if our elected officials were organized along ideological instead of partisan political lines.
With the White House already lost to the center-right, liberals, progressives, peace advocates, environmentalists, labor activists and such can more effectively deploy their time, talent and legal tender to reorienting the Congress than worrying over who's going to be president. Not that there aren't reasons to choose among them, but McCain, Clinton and Obama are more alike than they are different: none of them is going to tackle the radical adjustment in priorities needed if this is to become a just and democratic country. There should be no rush to choose one over another without getting concrete policy commitments in return.
In the matter at hand, for example, here is the list of nominal Democrats who voted with the Republicans to give the president the added power he craves: Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Conrad (ND), Inouye (HI), Johnson (SD), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Mikulski (MD), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Rockefeller (WV) -- the bill's sponsor, Salazar (CO), Pryor (AR), Webb (VA) and Whitehouse (D-RI). I'm not saying protecting your rights as citizens should be the only thing on your mind when you vote, but at least it ought to be a consideration.
Besides, many of these names -- Baucus, Casey, Conrad, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, the Nelson boys, Lincoln, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar -- come up over and over again as stalwart defenders of corporate interests and opponents of economic reform. Put a hand on your wallet and look around for a progressive alternative the next time they come conning for support in your precinct.
The list should give us pause in other ways. It turns out that a candidate's opposition to the war du jour may be an insufficient reason to endorse him if his objection to the conflict is that it has been mismanaged, the position of many corporatist Democrats, Jim Webb apparently among them. By the same token, it is hard to see what was gained by replacing the last liberal Republican, Lincoln Chafee, with the conservative Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse (another possible warning flag to keep in mind this particular election season: the Rhode Island Democrat's campaign slogan was "Change the Senate").
In 2006, the Democratic Senate and House election committees systematically supported conservatives against candidates who ran on such issues as peace and economic justice. With many more progressives in primary races this time than last, activists need to be on the alert for a reappearance of similar tactics in upcoming contests.
The news isn't all bad.
Although the president was at his fearmongering worst last week, in a rare demonstration of backbone, the leadership in the House, balking at shielding phone carriers from privacy lawsuits and at warrantless and unwarranted surveillance of American citizens by their government -- took a two-week Presidents' Day vacation without reauthorizing last summer's temporary domestic wiretapping law.
"By blocking this piece of legislation, our country is more in danger of an attack," Bush said of the House's presumption. "By not giving the professionals the tools they need, it's going to be a lot harder to do the job we need to be able to defend America."
The temporary provisions are set to expire at midnight tonight, but Democrats argued that the basic law will remain in effect and that the president wittingly manufactured the confrontation by threatening to veto a short-term extension that was intended to permit the Senate and House time to deliberate responsibly on revising FISA permanently. "He knows that the underlying 'intelligence' law and the power given to him in the Protect America Act give him sufficient authority to do all of the surveillance and collecting that he needs to do in order to protect the American people," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told The New York Times on Thursday.
In response to Bush's accusation that Democrats are imperiling the nation's security, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer accused the president of "fear mongering."
"After refusing to extend current law, the president repeated today his untenable and irresponsible claim that our national security will be jeopardized unless the House immediately rubber-stamps a Senate bill," Hoyer said. "In fact, a wide range of national security experts has made clear that the president and the intelligence community have all the tools they need to protect our nation."
"This is not about protecting Americans," added Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the House Democratic Caucus, on Friday. "The president just wants to protect American telephone companies."
If the bill is so vital, some Democrats wondered, why not sign the measure without the telecoms' "Get Out of Jail Free" card and let the phone companies off the hook with separate legislation?
Whether the rare display of gumption by House leaders is evidence that the Democrats are ready at last to take on the worst excesses of the president remains to be seen. But so low are our expectations by now that it was gratifying to see them display even the faintest profile of courage, notwithstanding that to do it they had to get out of town.
Countdown Special Comment on FISA: President Bush Is A Liar And A Fascist by Keith Olberman (CrooksAndLiars.com, 2008-02-14)
Putting the president above the law (International Herald Tribune, 2008-02-10)
Bush Says Congress Putting US in Danger (AP/NYTimes, 2008-02-15)
Update: House Democrats reject telecom amnesty, warrantless surveillance
The House approved a new FISA bill that denies retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecoms and which refuses to grant most of the new powers for the President to spy on Americans without warrants. It passed comfortably, by a 213-197 margin. (Salon.com, 2008-03-14)
Stimulus: Sanity returns -- briefly -- to the debate about fixing the economy
According to a report in this morning's Times, the Democratic majority is "short of the 60 votes needed to advance a $161 billion economic stimulus package toward approval in the Senate."
You may recall from civics class that it used to require a simple majority to pass most laws in the federal legislature. But since 2006, the Democrats have adopted a new theory of democracy under which no law can be advanced that is not veto-proof. The practical effect is to have the legislature held hostage by the president.
Some Democratic senators insist that the House stimulus plan, adopted under the super-majority theory, is a lousy bill that will benefit people who don't need help, hurt people who do, vastly increase the deficit, and not do much of anything for the economy.
Instead of crafting a responsible bill to address a perceived crisis -- and perhaps first determining whether there is a crisis, the House Democratic leadership, as is now its custom, caved in to the Bush administration's aversion to any economic program not made up primarily of tax cuts and payouts to the rich.
The senators are right. The House bill is pretty bad.
It creates humongous deficits at a time when we are already consumed with how we are going to continue to fund essential existing programs like Medicare and Social Security, let alone find the resources for important new efforts, such as universal health care. Because it consists largely of tax cuts, the resulting deficits will cause long-term interest rates to go up, an outcome more likely to further slow down the economy than to stimulate it, and add billions to the deficit by greatly increasing the cost of servicing the national debt.
And, of course, by agreeing not to raise revenues to pay for the expenditures, the Democratically controlled Congress is irresponsibly compounding an already catastrophic problem, passing it on to future generations of Americans and, more to the point, future generations of politicians.
Most important, as the latest sally in the administration's class war, the package continues the policy of redistributing national resources to those at the wealthiest end of the economic spectrum, not only sending money in the wrong direction but in this case dispatching huge amounts of it there. The average tax dividend dollar will go to superrich recipients whose primary source of income is taxable dividends, in other words, to people who not only don't need it, but, belying the rationale for the stimulus, to people who will have no incentive to spend it.
Conversely, the House proposal doesn't include immediate infusions of cash into the economy, as an expansion of the food stamp program would do; doesn't offer help to those who would be hurt by a recession, as an extension of unemployment payments would do; doesn't help state governments -- already suffering from declining tax revenues -- that bear most of the costs of social programs; and doesn't include expenditures -- on infrastructure projects, for example -- that would create jobs and improve the longterm strength of the economy.
Here's Democrat heavyweight Charles Schumer, New York's senior senator:
“If it fails, we’ll pass the House bill. But we’ll give it a try.”
Wow. The Republicans must be quaking in their Berlutis.
In case you're keeping track, here's another name you won't find in the next edition of Profiles in Courage:
Instead of fighting for better policy, the Democrats have decided to play political games with the legislative process. Having conceded ultimate victory to the conservatives, the Democrats hope to use the committee's bill and amendments from the floor to make "some Republicans potentially [pay] a steep political price, by voting against amendments that would be popular in their home states."
In opposing improved legislation, McConnell, whom the Times, as is its custom, gives the most ink and the last word, caps a recitation of the usual refrain about Democratic profligacy with a final tip of the hat to the bi-partisan, i.e., Bush-certified, House proposal.
How about this instead:
Pass the best bill you can. If Bush wants to veto it, so what? If the Republicans want to uphold the veto, same thing. Whether they succeed or fail, go to the American people in November and let them decide. Draw a clear line between the party of the people and the party of the rich. If they have an unambiguous understanding of whom they're voting for, no matter how it turns out, at least Americans will get the government they deserve.
You may recall from civics class that it used to require a simple majority to pass most laws in the federal legislature. But since 2006, the Democrats have adopted a new theory of democracy under which no law can be advanced that is not veto-proof. The practical effect is to have the legislature held hostage by the president.
Some Democratic senators insist that the House stimulus plan, adopted under the super-majority theory, is a lousy bill that will benefit people who don't need help, hurt people who do, vastly increase the deficit, and not do much of anything for the economy.
Instead of crafting a responsible bill to address a perceived crisis -- and perhaps first determining whether there is a crisis, the House Democratic leadership, as is now its custom, caved in to the Bush administration's aversion to any economic program not made up primarily of tax cuts and payouts to the rich.
The senators are right. The House bill is pretty bad.
It creates humongous deficits at a time when we are already consumed with how we are going to continue to fund essential existing programs like Medicare and Social Security, let alone find the resources for important new efforts, such as universal health care. Because it consists largely of tax cuts, the resulting deficits will cause long-term interest rates to go up, an outcome more likely to further slow down the economy than to stimulate it, and add billions to the deficit by greatly increasing the cost of servicing the national debt.
And, of course, by agreeing not to raise revenues to pay for the expenditures, the Democratically controlled Congress is irresponsibly compounding an already catastrophic problem, passing it on to future generations of Americans and, more to the point, future generations of politicians.
Most important, as the latest sally in the administration's class war, the package continues the policy of redistributing national resources to those at the wealthiest end of the economic spectrum, not only sending money in the wrong direction but in this case dispatching huge amounts of it there. The average tax dividend dollar will go to superrich recipients whose primary source of income is taxable dividends, in other words, to people who not only don't need it, but, belying the rationale for the stimulus, to people who will have no incentive to spend it.
Conversely, the House proposal doesn't include immediate infusions of cash into the economy, as an expansion of the food stamp program would do; doesn't offer help to those who would be hurt by a recession, as an extension of unemployment payments would do; doesn't help state governments -- already suffering from declining tax revenues -- that bear most of the costs of social programs; and doesn't include expenditures -- on infrastructure projects, for example -- that would create jobs and improve the longterm strength of the economy.
President Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the House Republican leader John A. Boehner of Ohio, and the Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have all urged the Senate to adopt a slightly cheaper version of the stimulus plan that was approved by the House on Tuesday.This pathetic charade is an example of the behavior that has led to the public's contempt for the legislature. The senators know as well as you do that the House bill is seriously flawed, but in an election year looking responsible trumps being responsible -- we have to do something, even if we all know it's the wrong thing -- and because "(w)ithout cloture, opponents of a Senate bill would be able to prolong the debate indefinitely," the leaders of the Senate have already indicated they, too, are ready to cave.
But Senate Democrats, including the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, have insisted on pressing ahead with their own package [is that sound the Times tsk-tsk-ing?], which was approved by the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday.
Only 3 of the 10 Republicans on the committee voted in favor of the plan, though — an early sign that the bipartisan cooperation that drove negotiations over the stimulus plan in the House was crumbling in the Senate.
The Senate stimulus plan would cost nearly $200 billion over two years, about $30 billion more than the House package [tsk-tsk] — and Democrats said they still intended to offer amendments that could add even more to the cost [tsk-tsk].
Sixty votes are needed under Senate rules to shut off debate on a measure and move to consideration of the measure itself, a step known as cloture. Without cloture, opponents of a Senate bill would be able to prolong the debate indefinitely.
Here's Democrat heavyweight Charles Schumer, New York's senior senator:
“If it fails, we’ll pass the House bill. But we’ll give it a try.”
Wow. The Republicans must be quaking in their Berlutis.
In case you're keeping track, here's another name you won't find in the next edition of Profiles in Courage:
Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the assistant majority leader, said that Democrats’ strategy was, first, to seek approval of the Senate’s stimulus bill along with a small number of amendments. If that failed, he said, they would then turn to holding a series of votes to add components to the House’s version of the bill, and then ultimately call a vote on that plan.As it emerged from committee, the Senate bill that Durbin and Schumer have already abandoned is a big improvement on the Bush-league House bill. For example, the Senate proposal provides payments of $500 each -- not rebates, but cash that in most cases will be spent immediately -- to about 20 million low-income Americans over the age of 62 who survive on Social Security benefits, and to about 250,000 veterans dependent on payouts from a grateful nation. In a perfect example of what's wrong with the lower body's proposal, neither of these groups would receive a penny from the House.
The Democrats’ willingness to publicly discuss such a fallback strategy verged on the waving of a surrender flag: It indicated that they knew Senate Republicans could block the more expensive Senate stimulus plan, and that any delay in approving the House package would be dangerous politically, since it would leave the Democrats vulnerable to charges that they were impeding efforts to prop up the economy.
Both stimulus plans are meant to encourage spending through a combination of income-tax rebates, tax incentives for businesses, and stipends for tax filers who report at least $3,000 in earnings but do not pay enough income tax to qualify for rebates.You are supposed to be excited and uplifted by the sight Democrats and Republicans voting in large numbers for the same bill, as if bipartisanship and not policy was the point of this is exercise. We are expected not to notice that, like every outbreak of bipartisanship in Washington, the legislation is a by-product of the Democratic majority's abdication of its responsibilities in the face of intransigence by the Bush administration. The unpopular, failed, corrupt, incompetent, lame-duck Bush administration.
The House plan was forged in swift negotiations among Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Boehner and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. In those talks, Ms. Pelosi ultimately [swiftly, is more like it] dropped Democratic demands that unemployment benefits be extended and food stamps be increased, in favor of sending rebates and stipends to 35 million low-income families that would not have received them under a Bush administration proposal.
Instead of fighting for better policy, the Democrats have decided to play political games with the legislative process. Having conceded ultimate victory to the conservatives, the Democrats hope to use the committee's bill and amendments from the floor to make "some Republicans potentially [pay] a steep political price, by voting against amendments that would be popular in their home states."
For instance, the Democrats were nearly certain to propose an amendment to increase government assistance for rising home heating costs and other energy expenses — a program for low-income families that is hugely popular in the Northeast. Republican Senators up for re-election this year, like Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, would be forced to choose between casting a yes vote that would break with the Republican leadership or a no vote that would be unpopular with their constituents.Not only is the Democratic plan cynical, it's a loser. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell already knows he's going to get the House bill. Do you think he won't free up his team to vote in favor of amendments their constituents favor? Sununu, for example, can vote for the heating fuel subsidy, thus gaining an advantage with the huddled masses in New Hampshire, then vote against the final version of the Democrats' bill in the name of, oh, i dunno, "fiscal responsibility."
Praising the House bill, Mr. McConnell said: “Republicans and Democrats rose above politics and put the people and our economy first.”This is how "bipartisanship" works. The White House -- not the legislature -- decides what is "acceptable." Under the 60% theory, the majority introduces legislation that will head off the threat of a veto or, in the Senate, a filibuster (the 66% theory, I guess). I stress threat. Bush has vetoed only eight bills, and you could run a decent Democratic campaign for office on most of them (stem cell research, children's health insurance, health and human services expenditures, water resources, a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq). And while there have been a large number of cloture votes in this session, the Senate majority has not forced the minority to hold real, public filibusters with whatever political consequences such confrontations might hold. All you really need to do to intimidate the Democrats is to frown at them.
He continued: “Then all eyes turned to the Senate. Would we put our individual interests aside, or would we throw the whole plan into jeopardy by loading it down with gifts for anybody who came calling? Apparently the temptation for giveaways was too great for some to resist."
In opposing improved legislation, McConnell, whom the Times, as is its custom, gives the most ink and the last word, caps a recitation of the usual refrain about Democratic profligacy with a final tip of the hat to the bi-partisan, i.e., Bush-certified, House proposal.
“As soon as the bill hit the Senate, it started to look a lot like Christmas over here. Chairman Baucus added 10 new provisions before the bill was even considered in committee. Three more amendments were added in the committee. You could almost hear Bing Crosby’s voice coming out of the Finance Committee.Bi-partisanship is a smoke screen used to obscure the fact that -- forget Democrats or Republicans -- the Congress is dominated by a conservative majority.
“So the stimulus train is slowing, grinding to a halt here in the U.S. Senate, all of which only reinforces my view that the only way we’ll get relief to the people soon enough for it to work, will be to insist on speed over spending. And the only way to do that is to pass the bipartisan, House-passed bill.”
How about this instead:
Pass the best bill you can. If Bush wants to veto it, so what? If the Republicans want to uphold the veto, same thing. Whether they succeed or fail, go to the American people in November and let them decide. Draw a clear line between the party of the people and the party of the rich. If they have an unambiguous understanding of whom they're voting for, no matter how it turns out, at least Americans will get the government they deserve.
Activism: Our Tattered Bill of Rights
Here is a timely new action:
The Campaign for Our Constitution is a coalition of Southern Californians working to bring attention to our country’s Constitutional crisis and restore America’s values....
What We Want:Revive habeas corpus, the basic right to hear the charges against youRead more about our goals
Restore FISA, the check on warrantless wiretapping
Close Guantanamo
Bring back checks and balances
How We'll Get ItExpand the Community: Meet others online and at eventsRead more about our strategy -- from the website.
Refine the Message: Talk strategy with other activists, bloggers and
Constitutional experts
Make Some Noise: Get the word out to local media
Take Direct Action: Put pressure on California’s members of
Congress to restore our civil liberties
<http://aclu-sc.org/ourconstitution/>
The Dems and Iraq: Confusing "can't" with "won't"
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting makes the point that, "Following a pattern set when Congress passed supplemental funding for the Iraq War last May, major media outlets continued to 'explain' the politics of the war in incomplete and misleading ways....Congress does not have to pass legislation to bring an end to the war in Iraq - it simply has to block passage of any bill that would continue to fund the war. This requires not 67 or 60 Senate votes, or even 51, but just 41....the Democrats have more than enough votes to end the Iraq War - if they choose to do so."
The rest of the story: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
The rest of the story: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
The Tarnished White House: Is it time for Bush and Cheney to go?
The media pumped for Bill Clinton's impeachment with seven months of non-stop focus on the presidential privates, while the Republican leadership bet the farm animals on ousting him 
from office for being human, but the American public never bought it. Now, with the media dismissing talk of punishing the administration for corruption and incompetence and the Democratic leadership refusing even to talk about bringing the Bush-Cheney criminal enterprise to a close, a clear majority of the citizenry has concluded on its own that Dick Cheney should be impeached, convicted and removed from office, and a large and growing number think George Bush should meet the same fate. Clearly we worry too much about the influence of the media on public opinion. Maybe, also, we should give up looking to the incumbent Democrats to represent us and try to identify new champions among the third parties and on the Dems' left flank. And maybe we should forget about impeachment. Let's just find a conscientious prosecutor somewhere -- New Orleans, perhaps? (where is Jim Garrison when you need him?), forgo the Constitutional rigamarole, and hit the White House with a RICO bust.
See also, Impeachment is Democrats' sworn duty by Cenk Uygur (The Politico)
from office for being human, but the American public never bought it. Now, with the media dismissing talk of punishing the administration for corruption and incompetence and the Democratic leadership refusing even to talk about bringing the Bush-Cheney criminal enterprise to a close, a clear majority of the citizenry has concluded on its own that Dick Cheney should be impeached, convicted and removed from office, and a large and growing number think George Bush should meet the same fate. Clearly we worry too much about the influence of the media on public opinion. Maybe, also, we should give up looking to the incumbent Democrats to represent us and try to identify new champions among the third parties and on the Dems' left flank. And maybe we should forget about impeachment. Let's just find a conscientious prosecutor somewhere -- New Orleans, perhaps? (where is Jim Garrison when you need him?), forgo the Constitutional rigamarole, and hit the White House with a RICO bust.See also, Impeachment is Democrats' sworn duty by Cenk Uygur (The Politico)
The fight against terrorism is not a war
Lee Casey, a veteran of the Reagan and first Bush Justice departments, is quoted in the WSJ (Terror War Legal Edifice Weakens) as saying the next president, whether a Republican or a Democrat, will be hard-pressed to relinquish the executive powers Mr. Bush has fought so hard to assert. "I don't think the next president will have much of a choice, whatever his or her instincts may be," Mr. Casey told the Journal. "You are either engaged in an armed conflict," where a country can use military force against its enemies, "or the laws of war don't apply."
But the laws of war don't apply to the effort to counter the scourge of terrorism. Many of us who have opposed as mistaken the "war on terror" in general -- in some cases since 9/12 -- and the invasion of Iraq in particular argue that "war" was never a useful organizing metaphor for combating terrorism. In the wake of 9/11, it would have been far more effective to treat Al-Qaeda and their ilk as international criminals instead of buying into their self-glorification as warriors. Had we spent our $billions arming and training the world's police departments instead of destabilizing great swatches of the Middle East and Southeast Asia, we'd not only be more secure, but we would have a lot more friends in the international community.
And we would not have unloosed the pernicious notion of preemptive war (if ever there was a policy guaranteed to come back to haunt us, that's it).
Undoing the mistakes of the Bush administration is obviously a herculean undertaking. But if s/he does nothing else, the next president must begin by ratcheting down the war rhetoric as a first step toward implementing a more effective policy against terrorism. If we are ever going to hunt down, disarm, prosecute, punish and neutralize the criminals who engage in terrorist activities, we need to be able to think more clearly about who they are -- murderers, extortionists, gangsters, lunatics -- and what tools -- intelligence, deterrence, incarceration -- will be most effective against them.
The Founders anticipated that there would be presidents who would overreach, who would attempt to wrest the powers of government away from legislators, but they never dreamed there would be legislatures as docious as the last several congresses. We still lack congressional leaders, especially in the Senate, with the spine to defend legislative prerogatives, but at least there is a growing perception, especially in the House, about the need to restore historical Constitutional restraints on the executive and to redress the balance of power between the branches.
The reason I worry about Hillary Clinton's candidacy is that she accepts the primacy of the executive as a given. Obviously, in a race between Sen. Clinton and Gingrich or some Thompson or other, there will be no alternative but to go all out for the Democrat. But we need to recognize that, should she win, she may be a disappointment to progressives because of her reluctance "to relinquish the executive powers Mr. Bush has fought so hard to assert."
But the laws of war don't apply to the effort to counter the scourge of terrorism. Many of us who have opposed as mistaken the "war on terror" in general -- in some cases since 9/12 -- and the invasion of Iraq in particular argue that "war" was never a useful organizing metaphor for combating terrorism. In the wake of 9/11, it would have been far more effective to treat Al-Qaeda and their ilk as international criminals instead of buying into their self-glorification as warriors. Had we spent our $billions arming and training the world's police departments instead of destabilizing great swatches of the Middle East and Southeast Asia, we'd not only be more secure, but we would have a lot more friends in the international community.
And we would not have unloosed the pernicious notion of preemptive war (if ever there was a policy guaranteed to come back to haunt us, that's it).
Undoing the mistakes of the Bush administration is obviously a herculean undertaking. But if s/he does nothing else, the next president must begin by ratcheting down the war rhetoric as a first step toward implementing a more effective policy against terrorism. If we are ever going to hunt down, disarm, prosecute, punish and neutralize the criminals who engage in terrorist activities, we need to be able to think more clearly about who they are -- murderers, extortionists, gangsters, lunatics -- and what tools -- intelligence, deterrence, incarceration -- will be most effective against them.
The Founders anticipated that there would be presidents who would overreach, who would attempt to wrest the powers of government away from legislators, but they never dreamed there would be legislatures as docious as the last several congresses. We still lack congressional leaders, especially in the Senate, with the spine to defend legislative prerogatives, but at least there is a growing perception, especially in the House, about the need to restore historical Constitutional restraints on the executive and to redress the balance of power between the branches.
The reason I worry about Hillary Clinton's candidacy is that she accepts the primacy of the executive as a given. Obviously, in a race between Sen. Clinton and Gingrich or some Thompson or other, there will be no alternative but to go all out for the Democrat. But we need to recognize that, should she win, she may be a disappointment to progressives because of her reluctance "to relinquish the executive powers Mr. Bush has fought so hard to assert."
A challenge to Bush's grab for power
A group of conservatives is confronting abuses of power by the Bush administration. Under the banner of the American Freedom Agenda, they have proposed a series of statutes designed to rein in the executive branch. They hope to make restoration of liberties mandated and protected by the Constitution central to the 2008 campaign for president and to the deliberations of Congress in the coming months. This is from the organization's website (I've added some bolding for emphasis):
These are matters crucial to our ability to conduct ourselves as a democracy. It is encouraging to see conservatives joining the fight to save the Constitution. And, although it's good to have them on board and all, it is a little discouraging to this progressive that even with a Democratic majority in Congress it should be necessary to look to the likes of Bruce Fein, Bob Barr, David Keene and Richard Viguerie for defense of our freedoms.
American Freedom Agenda:
<http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org/>
The American Freedom Agenda’s (AFA) mission is twofold: the enactment of a cluster of statutes that would restore the Constitution’s checks and balances as enshrined by the Founding Fathers; and, making the subject a staple of political campaigns and of foremost concern to Members of Congress and to voters and educators. Especially since 9/11, the executive branch has chronically usurped legislative or judicial power, and has repeatedly claimed that the President is the law. The constitutional grievances against the White House are chilling, reminiscent of the kingly abuses that provoked the Declaration of Independence.To advance this agenda during the 2008 campaign, the AFA has proposed a 10-point "Freedom Pledge" it hopes the candidates will agree to:
The 10-point American Freedom Agenda would work to restore the roles of Congress and the federal judiciary to prevent such abuses of power and protect against injustices that are the signature of civilized nations. In particular, the American Freedom Agenda would:* Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;The mission of the AFA is explained further here
* Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
* Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President’s say-so;
* Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
* Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law;
* Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
* Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
* Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
* Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
* Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.
I, (candidate), hereby pledge that if elected President of the United States I will undertake the following to restore the Constitution’s checks and balances, to honor fundamental protections against injustice, and to eschew usurpations of legislative or judicial power.These are keystones of national security and individual freedom:______________ (signed: Hillary Clinton? John Edwards? Barack Obama? Bill Richardson? Al Gore? Mitt Romney? Rudy Giuliani? Sam Brownback? Fred Thompson? Newt Gingrich?)
1. No Military Commissions Except on the Battlefield. I will not employ military commissions to prosecute offenses against the laws of war except in places where active hostilities are ongoing and a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony and to prevent local anarchy or chaos.
2. No Evidence Extracted by Torture or Coercion. I will not permit the use of evidence obtained by torture or coercion to be admissible in a military commission or other tribunal.
3. No Detaining Citizens as Unlawful Enemy Combatants. I will not detain any American citizen as an unlawful enemy combatant. Citizens accused of terrorism-linked crimes will be prosecuted in federal civilian courts.
4. Restoring Habeas Corpus for Suspected Alien Enemy Combatants. I will detain non-citizens as enemy combatants only if they have actively participated in actual hostilities against the United States. I will urge Congress to amend the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to permit any individual detained under the custody or control of the United States government to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal courts.
5. Prohibiting Warrantless Spying by the National Security Agency in Violation of Law. I will prohibit the National Security Agency from gathering foreign intelligence except in conformity with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and end the NSA’s domestic surveillance program that targets American citizens on American soil for warrantless electronic surveillance.
6. Renouncing Presidential Signing Statements. I will not issue presidential signing statements declaring the intent to disregard provisions of a bill that I have signed into law because I believe they are unconstitutional. Instead, I will veto any bill that I believe contains an unconstitutional provision and ask Congress to delete it and re-pass the legislation.
7. Ending Secret Government by Invoking State Secrets Privilege. I will not invoke the state secrets privilege to deny remedies to individuals victimized by constitutional violations perpetrated by government officials or agents. I will not assert executive privilege to deny Congress information relevant to oversight or legislation unless supreme state secrets are involved. In that case, I will submit the privilege claim to a legislative-executive committee for definitive resolution.
8. Stopping Extraordinary Renditions. I will order the cessation of extraordinary renditions except where the purpose of the capture and transportation of the suspected criminal is for prosecution according to internationally accepted standards of fairness and due process.
9. Stopping Threats to Prosecuting Journalists under the Espionage Act. I will urge Congress to amend the Espionage Act to create a journalistic exception for reporting on matters relating to the national defense. As a matter of prosecutorial discretion, until such an amendment is enacted I will not prosecute journalists for alleged Espionage Act violations except for the intentional disclosure of information that threatens immediate physical harm to American troops or citizens at home or abroad.
10. Ending the Listing of Individuals or Organizations as Terrorists Based on Secret Evidence. I will not list individuals or organizations as foreign terrorists or foreign terrorist organizations for purposes of United States or international law based on secret evidence.
I will issue a public report annually elaborating on how the actions enumerated in paragraphs 1-10 have strengthened the ability of the United States to defeat international terrorism, secure fundamental freedoms, and preserve the nation’s democratic dispensation.
These are matters crucial to our ability to conduct ourselves as a democracy. It is encouraging to see conservatives joining the fight to save the Constitution. And, although it's good to have them on board and all, it is a little discouraging to this progressive that even with a Democratic majority in Congress it should be necessary to look to the likes of Bruce Fein, Bob Barr, David Keene and Richard Viguerie for defense of our freedoms.
American Freedom Agenda:
<http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org/>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
