Why We Have To Look Back
The op-ed below was published in The Washington Post and is available online here.
This week, I released "Reining in the Imperial Presidency," a 486-page report detailing the abuses and excesses of the Bush administration and recommending steps to address them. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. popularized the term "imperial presidency" in the 1970s to describe an executive who had assumed more power than the Constitution allows and circumvented the checks and balances fundamental to our three-branch system of government. Until recently, the Nixon administration seemed to represent a singular embodiment of the idea. Unfortunately, it is clear that the threat of the imperial presidency lives on and, indeed, reached new heights under George W. Bush.
As this report documents, there was the administration's contrived drive to a needless war of aggression with Iraq, based on manipulated intelligence and facts that were "fixed around the policy." There was its politicization of the Justice Department; unconscionable and possibly illegal policies on detention, interrogation and extraordinary rendition; warrantless wiretaps of American citizens; the ravaging of our regulatory system and the use of signing statements to override the laws of the land; and the intimidation and silencing of critics and whistle-blowers who dared to tell fellow citizens what was being done in their name. And all of this was hidden behind an unprecedented veil of secrecy and outlandish claims of privilege.
I understand that many feel we should just move on. They worry that addressing these actions by the Bush administration will divert precious energy from the serious challenges facing our nation. I understand the power of that impulse. Indeed, I want to move on as well -- there are so many things that I would rather work on than further review of Bush's presidency. But in my view it would not be responsible to start our journey forward without first knowing exactly where we are.
We cannot rebuild the appropriate balance between the branches of government without fully understanding how that relationship has been distorted. Likewise, we cannot set an appropriate baseline for future presidential conduct without documenting and correcting the presidential excesses that have just occurred. After the Nixon imperial presidency, critical reviews such as the Church and Pike committees led to fundamental reforms that have served our nation well. Comparable steps are needed to begin the process of reining in the legacy of the Bush imperial presidency. I consider these three points crucial:
First, Congress should continue to pursue its document requests and subpoenas that were stonewalled under President Bush. Doing so will make clear that no executive can forever hide its misdeeds from the public.
Second, Congress should create an independent blue-ribbon panel or similar body to investigate a host of previously unreviewable activities of the Bush administration, including its detention, interrogation and surveillance programs. Only by chronicling and confronting the past in a comprehensive, bipartisan fashion can we reclaim our moral authority and establish a credible path forward to meet the complex challenges of a post-Sept. 11 world.
Third, the new administration should conduct an independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities. Just this week, in the pages of this newspaper, a Guantanamo Bay official acknowledged that a suspect there had been "tortured" -- her exact word -- in apparent violation of the law. The law is the law, and, if criminal conduct occurred, those responsible -- particularly those who ordered and approved the violations -- must be held accountable.
Some day, there is bound to be another national security crisis in America. A future president will face the same fear and uncertainty that we did after Sept. 11, 2001, and will feel the same temptation to believe that the ends justify the means -- temptation that drew our nation over to the "dark side" under the leadership of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. If those temptations are to be resisted -- if we are to face new threats in a manner that keeps faith with our values and strengthens rather than diminishes our authority around the world -- we must fully learn the lessons of our recent past.
Subpoenas....
...away!
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...
Accountability and Precedent
Having just finished reading Jane Mayer's The Dark Side, for the sake of accountability and to not let a precedent be established for future leaders, it is imperative that the truth be established as best it can be, that laws that may have been broken be upheld, that those who contrived to abuse the powers at their hands be held accountable. I am in my early 50's, and have less confidence in my government now than at any time in my past, and that includes the turbulent times of the 60's and 70's. The corruption now seems so much more sophisticated, so much more entrenched, so much more intertwined with what passes as "justice" in my country. There certainly is an opportunity to correct this impression, one which I am sure is shared by many of my generation.
If it can not be done in my own country, I can only hope those countries with universal jurisdiction will make up for our own lax judgement. By all means, move forward by taking a good hard, long look back and hold those accountable those who have abused our country and its people.
Excellent op-ed, Congressman Conyers
I respect your opinions on this, and greatly appreciate the work you've done to seek truth and accountability. I agree that it is not responsible to move forward without first knowing where we are.
I hope that that the new Administration and the new Congress feel the same way.
Obama's first Executive Order
issued today on Presidential Records seems to support your efforts.
I look forward to more news and information on this.
Excellent work, Mr. Chairman
Well said, deeply appreciated.
On the lighter side :
An old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here."
The old man said, "Okay", and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here."
The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.
The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"
The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow, Sir.
More seriously, I want to say Thank You for the Inauguration Ceremonies. I don't recall a better job ever being done. In particular, I think the Marines made their case to stand among the finest Musicians in the world. Also, I was pleased to hear the saluting battery I suggested, and it was used very tastefully. The Presidents Speech was all that could be hoped for, and while we will have to fight for what is right, he has given us a good start.
On the other hand, I found the missile strike in Pakistan a disillusioning surprise. Basic question : Doesn't bombing "Suspected Terrorists" make us just as bad as them? And that's assuming the suspects are guilty...which We, the People, do not know to be a fact. At some point we have to stop the self-destructive behavior. When Kennedy faced the Missiles of October, he repeatedly asked, "And then what happens?" .President Kennedy found out some important things and made his decisions accordingly. So we survived. It is important that the President ask penetrating questions and I hope he receives encouragement to do so.
This is one of the reasons I think it a poor idea to have a director of national intelligence. The President should have access to several independent sources of intel, to better insure his independence.
My thanks to the Chairman.
Frosted Flake
It's Vuja'day.
Chairman subpoenas Rove
Wonderful
FF
Food for thought
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000003----000-.html
Whoever, knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact; one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon's apprehension, trial, or punishment.
Remember this?
"I ... will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Re-write
I thought Justice Roberts re-wrote the Oath...?
--
Those who forget history
Condemn the rest of us to repeat it.
Buying Obama Time, Congress Delays Rove Subpoena Deadline
Justice delayed?
The House Judiciary committee has agreed to a request from Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, to postpone the deadline by which Rove must respond to a subpoena issued by the committee.
Here's the letter sent by the committee, agreeing to Luskin's request and setting a new date of February 23 for Rove's testimony.
The hold-off serves the interests of the White House. The Obama administration is scheduled to file a brief on February 18 in the ongoing court case over the House's subpoena of two other senior Bush White House aides, Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. At that time, it will likely indicate whether it intends to back President Bush's claim of retroactive executive privilege on behalf of his aides. So the committee's decision to agree to Luskin's request means the Obama administration has until then to formulate its position.
The ball, then, is still in Obama's court. And court is still exactly where the battle over Rove's testimony is most likely headed.
Buying Obama Time, Congress Delays Rove Subpoena Deadline
Letter to Luskin
Ball In Obama's Court On Rove's US Attorney Testimony
Wonderful
The letter to Mr. Luskin is just wonderful.
Hope I ain't overusing that word.
FF