Will You Love Every Future President? ---- if they are ONLY interested in the USA's interests
On Oct 19, 10:37 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Will You Love Every Future President?by Tom Engelhardt and David Swanson > Presidential power has been on apathwayof expansion beyond what the > Constitution outlined, and what a government of, by, and for the people > requires, since George Washington was president. That expansion, which hit > the highway after World War II, got aturbo boostduring the co-presidency > ofGeorge W. BushandDick Cheney. > Some of the new powers that those two stole from Congress, the courts, the > states, and us the people are being abused less severely in this new age of > Obama; others, more so; but far more crucially, in a pattern followed by > recent presidencies,allare being maintained, if not expanded, and thus more > firmly cemented into place for future presidents to use. Wherever you fall on > the political spectrum, you are likely to strongly oppose some major > decisions of some future presidents. So it shouldn't be hard to envision some > pretty undesirable consequences that might flow from presidential power that > increasingly approaches the absolute. > Our television news and newspapers don't seem terribly interested in this > story, despite scraping its surface with reports on the many "czars" Obama > has appointed or lectures on the importance of renewing, or only marginally > amending, the PATRIOT Act. And Congress seems, if possible, even less > interested. That's not so surprising, given that we've replaced the three > branches of government with the two parties, so that at any given time > roughly half the members of Congress take as their leader a president who is > theoretically supposed to execute the will of Congress. And the other half > usually obey their party's "leaders" in Congress, whose primary interest is > in electing one of their own as the next president. Both parties continue to > value presidential power itself either for its uses in the present, or for > when their candidate is elected. Everyone wants to inherit the imperial > presidency, not constrain it. > Under these circumstances,billstocreatecommissions investigating presidential > abuses, toplacea judicial check on claims of "state secrets,"limitthe use of > presidential signing statements, or toallowmore than eight members of > Congress to be given "security" briefings by the executive branch prove not > to be priorities for either party. > These days, the old-fashioned idea of checking executive abuses of existing > laws through theissuanceofsubpoenasor byimpeachmentis, in Washington, widely > considered a scandalous proposition. Congress impeacheda judgethis year who > had groped his employees, butJay Bybee, who signed secret memos purporting to > legalizeaggressive warandtorture, and who now holds a lifetime seat on the > Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is protected from such a step by his recent > membership in the executive branch (and the displeasure Fox News would > express toward his impeachment). > In April, Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary > Committee,askedBybee to testify, and the judge refused, just as many of his > former colleagues in the Bush administrationhadin 2007 and 2008. Leahy may be > unwilling to follow up by issuing a subpoena that even the new Department of > Justice might refuse to enforce. The current department, for instance, > allowed the White House Counsel tonegotiatepartial compliance with a House > Judiciary Committee subpoena by former presidential advisor Karl Rove. And if > Leahy is like most members of Congress, he will not even considerthe optionof > using the Capitol Police to enforce a subpoena himself – something that no > committee has done in 75 years.All Power to the President > Any quick survey of the powers the presidency now claims would have to > include the power to make laws, the power to make wars, the power to spend > money, the power to make treaties, the power to grant immunity for crimes, > the power to operate in secrecy, the power to spy without warrants, the power > to detain without charge, and the power to torture. > Laws are still made by Congress, but they can be rewritten viasigning > statements; that is, statements announcing a president's intention to violate > particular sections of the very bill he is signing into law. Neither Congress > nor President Obama has thrown out all of Bush's extensive signing statements > that did indeed alter laws. In fact, Obamahas announcedthat his subordinates > will review his predecessor's signing statements only as the need arises. > This policy might please those imagining that the Obama administration will > always make the right decision about whether to maintain or reject a > Bush-made amendment to a law, but it does nothing to strip the presidency of > the power to use the mechanism of the signing statement to re-make or amend > or alter new laws. As it happens, Obama has already publishedhis > ownlaw-making signing statements. > Presidents now also routinelydeterminenational policy through executive > orders and, in doing so, run the country out of the White House rather than > through departments headed by officials approved by Congress. They also > increasinglydictatea legislative agenda to Congress – and both members of > Congress and members of the public generally accept without comment or > opposition that inversion of our constitutional system. And then there are > thesecret memos. > In those secret memos, Bush's lawyers in the Department of Justice dutifully > "legalized" numerous illegal acts, includingaggressive warandtorture. Despite > years of public back-and-forth between the White House and the Congress over > the question of whether to ban torture, any act of complicity in torture was > already a felony in the U.S. code under theAnti-Torture Act, which enforced > theConvention Against Torturesigned by President Ronald Reagan. However, the > secret Justice Department memos were taken as the final word in legality, no > matter what the law said. > Obama has directed the Justice Department not to prosecute those at the > highest levels responsible for producing those memos, though he > haspermittedconsideration – whether seriously intended or not – of the > possibility of prosecuting a handful of low-ranking staffers who strayed > beyond the illegal policies outlined in the memos. Not only does this bestow > immunity on the most prominent criminals, reversing the approach – starting > at the top – that the U.S. took at the Nuremburg war crimes trials after > World War II, but it has the potential to create a terrifying precedent for > the future. If a president can use his justice department to legalize a crime > simply by asking a lawyer to write a memo, then who can doubt that a > president has something approaching absolute power? > Presidents, not Congress, do indeed make wars now, whether or not they > consult Jay Bybee's memo on the subject. They make wars without congressional > declarations of war, using instead vague bills to maintain a pretense of > congressional involvement – and then they don't even comply with the terms > outlined in those authorizations. Illegal (as well as unconstitutional) as > they may be, these wars can be expanded intoapparently permanentoccupations > that include the construction of gigantic military bases from which > additional wars may be launched. In the process, mercenaries often take the > place of soldiers, and as "private contractors" they thenoperateeven further > from congressional oversight or the law. > To invade Iraq, President Bushspentmoney not appropriated for that purpose. > He also gave himself the power to transfer money into "black budgets" beyond > the purview of all but a few members of Congress, and so use it for secret > tasks signed off on by his officials. Of course, massive secret budgets under > the control of the president are nothing new, though they've grown through > the years. Neither are they constitutional or sustainable. > On October 6th, the leaders of the two parties met with President Obama and, > by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's account,let him knowthat he could end, > decrease, maintain, or escalate the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan as he saw > fit. The Senate had voted the previous week not to call on war commander > Stanley McChrystal for public testimony about that ongoing war untilafterthe > president determines his war policy, which of course means a war policy for > all of us. Two days later, in a surprising flicker of dissent, House > Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obeyreleaseda statement suggesting > that, contrary to everything he'd said for years, he recognizes that Congress > has the power to choose not to fund those wars and thereby to end them. > As his presidency was winding down, George W. Bushconcludedan unofficial > treaty (though it was called a Status of Forces Agreement) with the > government of U.S.-occupied Iraq for three more years of war there without > feeling the slightest need for it to be ratified by the Senate. Ever since, > the U.S. military has actually violated the terms of that document, while its > key commanders continued topublicly statetheir intention to remain in Iraq > beyond the end of 2011, a clear violation of the agreement. In the meantime, > this White House has used the treaty as cover for an ongoing illegal > occupation of Iraq with, at this point, 120,000 U.S. troops and tens of > thousands of private contractors.Is Congress Broken? > When manyfearedthat Bush might pardon his subordinates forcrimeshe had > himself authorized, the consensus among members of Congress and scholars was > that he could, in fact, do such a thing. In some ways what both Bush and > Obama have actually done is worse. With a big assist from Congress in the > form of bills like theMilitary Commissions Actand theFISA Amendments Act, > they have worked to grant immunity for crimes without even naming the > criminals or revealing what they have done. Obama's Department of Justice is > nowarguing, appealing, or re-appealing invariouscourtcasesto keepsecretthe > abuses of government officials andcorporationsinvolved in torture and > warrantless spying. Recently, the Justice Department evenarguedthat, when it > comes to denying information to a court or the public, telecommunication > corporations must be considered a part of the executive branch of the federal > government, and earlier this year the administrationthreatenedthe British > government with an end to intelligence sharing if it revealed evidence of > torture. > President Obamaannouncedthat he will only claim the right to hide information > from a court on the grounds that important "state secrets" are involved after > careful review by lawyers at the Department of Justice. This may be an > improvement over the Bush years – not exactly a hard standard to reach – but > notably this decision still cedes not an ounce of power to any branch other > than the executive, even as Obama's lawyers make radical "state secrets" > claims in attempts to block entire court cases, rather than over particular > pieces of information. > While this president is ceding modest amounts of territory claimed by the > previous one, he is ceding nothing when it comes to presidential power > itself. For example, the president said he would release White House visitor > logs (as the Bush administration had not), just not those already recorded, > including the ones that held records of the visits of deal-making health > insurance executives, nor any future logs thathethinks would endanger > "national security." That offers change of a sort, however modest, but leaves > it entirely in the president's hands to decide which logs to release. > This administration has indeedreleasedsome of the secret memos that Bush's > Department of Justice used to justify torture and never shared with the > public, but only when compelled by courts. The Justice Department has, in > fact, fought fiercely against their release and has redacted significant > sections of them before making them public. > Bush claimed for the presidency the power to detain people without charge or > legal process – and then used it. Obama stood in front of the U.S. > Constitution in the National Archives in Washington andassertedthe same > power, in violation of the right ofhabeas corpusfound in that torn and > tattered document. Director of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta and > presidential advisor David Axelrod have similarlymade clearthat the president > still claims the power to engage in "harsh interrogation techniques" but > chooses not to use it. Torture in this way has been transformed from a crime > into a policy choice, with the intended message apparently being that we can > stop torture temporarily by choosing to elect Democrats. This is perilous > territory. > Perhaps presidents simply cannot be expected to give back powers gained by > the executive branch, but shouldn't we expect Congress to work to take them > back on our behalf? When Alberto Gonzales resigned as attorney general, he > did so because a rapidly growing list of members of Congress signed onto a > one-sentence bill directing the House Judiciary Committee to investigate > possible grounds for his impeachment. Such an approach toward Judge Jay Bybee > could begin torestore the powerof Congress to assert itself in other areas as > well, while pressuring the Justice Department to enforce the law, and > potentially making public a great deal of information through the subpoenas > involved in any impeachment hearing, which does not permit claims of > "executive privilege." Information subpoenaed in an impeachment hearingmustbe > produced, or the failure to produce it can become another impeachable offense. > Many of us probably consider our current president a much nicer guy than our > local congressional representative. That doesn't change the fact that > influencing a president, or even a senator, via grassroots pressure is > infinitely more difficult than influencing a member of the House of > Representatives. > This is not a new discovery. After all, isn't this, in part, why the House > was given the power of the purse and the power of impeachment? Being closer > to the ground, that body is, by its nature, going to be more amenable to > democratic pressure and direction. If we want once again to have a real hand > in making our nation's policies, our best shot – admittedly still a > distinctly uphill course – is to focus on the person who represents us in the > House. > Unfortunately, we have to compel each of them to do something they have come > to collectively fear: taking back the power originally bestowed on them and > not on behalf of their party, but of their branch of government, of the > Constitution to which they've sworn an oath, and of the proper sovereigns of > this nation: we the people. Otherwise the chief legacy of the Obama years > will, like those of his immediate predecessors, be the slide from republic > into empire and the continuing growth of an imperial > presidency.http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt392.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
