Letters to the Editor
-
where are we?
I don't know what individuals can do without putting themselves at the mercy of this 'administration' to alert and persuade others that we are not in Kansas anymore ?
-
The answer to analologboy490's question is:
When you stand up.
-
No form of government can survive endless war without becoming totalitarian
Their wrongdoing is extreme, and only equally extreme corrective measures will suffice. -- GG
Continuous war, both within a nation and with other nations, is the means whereby any form of governance can be turned to totalitarianism. Our wars are now wars, not of self defense, but of aggression under the guise of self defense. They are criminal wars. As a result, our society is now evidencing many of the symptoms of a totalitarian state. It may have a happy face on it where the majority of citizens are concerned, but that does not change the fact that we have become increasingly totalitarian. Under the guise of anti-terrorism, we have put in place both legal and illegal mechanisms that make our society increasingly bear resemblance to Stalinist Russia. We are being made to live in constant fear of our lives, our security, our future and even our individual freedom. We are becoming a police state.
As a constitutional lawyer, you think in terms of legal remedies under the Constitution. I am not a lawyer, but I do know that the small steps we are taking to preserve our society from the hostile takeover of our nation by a gang of criminals are insufficient and were always insufficient.
We have been in worse spots. We had a civil war, two world wars and a cold war that threatened global annihilation and we survived as a nation. I believe that we can survive this as well, but only if we force the issues. Small steps will not suffice. Either we are a democracy or we are not. If we are not, the sooner we know it, the better.
The first thing we must do is stop the war in Iraq by cutting off the money immediately. The second thing we must do is to treat the those who have committed high crimes against the Constitution and against humanity as criminals under the law. A good start would be to take a hard line and to arrest those who are currently in contempt of Congress.
George Bush is and has always been a symptom of US weakness. Everything this administration has done was done from a position of weakness.
We do not have to be weak. We can be strong again if we choose.
-
The final "natural extension" is that they will never leave
Every legal argument that the WH has made since the last election has an ultimate message: "We are never going to leave office."
If there were ever any chance that a Democrat would ever hold the Presidency again, then the Rove-Cheney group would not advance the positions they do regarding the power of the President and Vice-President, and the weakness of Congress to control them. So they logically intend to guarantee that the Presidency stay in their hands (let's not call them "Republicans" - call them "Kleptocrats") for the indefinite future.
It's a simple argument. If the President is all-powerful, then he can declare a State of Emergency and postpone elections. He can issue an Executive Order that makes himself Commander-in-Chief for life. He can appoint the next “President” and retire to his ranch. He can do whatever he wants that he argues is necessary for the prosecution of the war. He can confiscate all the resources of his opponents, per his July 17 EO, and crush anyone who complains. The Republic is over; the Democracy is over. The Dictator arises. History teaches us it has always been thus.
Bush and Cheney (and Gonzales as legal enabler) will hold on the reins of power until there is no money left in the Treasury and there is no credit available in the world market. They are sadistic and sneering con-men who have decided to rob the wealthiest economy on Earth because “that is where the money is.”
Then they will retire to their “nature preserves” in Paraguay to let the remainder of the American citizenry fight it out over the bankrupt scraps of the former great nation.
Have you got a better explanation for the teleological underpinnings of their actions?
-
"Their wrongdoing is extreme, and only equally extreme corrective measures will suffice."
You can say it, you must say it: Impeachment
-
Nixon II
Glenn: I knew you'd post about this today, and I'm glad you did, because I recently found a statement by President Nixon in 1973, before the famous Nixon case was argued before and decided by the Supreme Court, regarding executive privilege.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=4137
Richard Nixon
Statement About Executive Privilege
March 12th, 1973
DURING my press conference Of January 31, 1973, I stated that I would issue a statement outlining my views on executive privilege.
***
In recent weeks, questions have been raised about the availability of officials in the executive branch to present testimony before committees of the Congress. As my 1969 memorandum dealt primarily with guidelines for providing information to the Congress and did not focus specifically on appearances by officers of the executive branch and members of the President's personal staff, it would be useful to outline my policies concerning the latter question.
During the first 4 years of my Presidency, hundreds of Administration officials spent thousands of hours freely testifying before committees of the Congress. Secretary of Defense Laird, for instance, made 86 separate appearances before Congressional committees, engaging in over 327 hours of testimony. By contrast, there were only three occasions during the first term of my Administration when executive privilege was invoked anywhere in the executive branch in response to a Congressional request for information. These facts speak not of a closed Administration, but of one that is pledged to openness and is proud to stand on its record.
Requests for Congressional appearances by members of the President's personal staff present a different situation and raise different considerations. Such requests have been relatively infrequent through the years, and in past administrations they have been routinely declined. I have followed that same tradition in my Administration, and I intend to continue it during the remainder of my term.
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the manner in which the President personally exercises his assigned executive powers is not subject to questioning by another branch of Government. If the President is not subject to such questioning, it is equally appropriate that members of his staff not be so questioned, for their roles are in effect an extension of the Presidency.
This tradition rests on more than constitutional doctrine: It is also a practical necessity. To insure the effective discharge of the executive responsibility, a President must be able to place absolute confidence in the advice and assistance offered by the members of his staff. And in the performance of their duties for the President, those staff members must not be inhibited by the possibility that their advice and assistance will ever become a matter of public debate, either during their tenure in Government or at a later date. Otherwise, the candor with which advice is rendered and the quality Of such assistance will inevitably be compromised and weakened. What is at stake, therefore, is not simply a question of confidentiality but the integrity of the decisionmaking process at the very highest levels of our Government.
The considerations I have just outlined have been and must be recognized in other fields, in and out of government. A law clerk, for instance, is not subject to interrogation about the factors or discussions /hat preceded a decision of the judge.
For these reasons, just as I shall not invoke executive privilege lightly, I shall also look to the Congress to continue this proper tradition in asking for executive branch testimony only from the officers properly constituted to provide the information sought, and only when the eliciting of such testimony will serve a genuine legislative purpose.
As I stated in my press conference on January 31, the question of whether circumstances warrant the exercise of executive privilege should be determined on a case-by-case basis. In making such decisions, I shall rely on the following guidelines:
i. In the case of a department or agency, every official shall comply with a reasonable request for an appearance before the Congress, provided that the performance of the duties of his office will not be seriously impaired thereby. If the official believes that a Congressional request for a particular document or for testimony on a particular point raises a substantial question as to the need for invoking executive privilege, he shall comply with the procedures set forth in my memorandum of March 24, 1969. Thus, executive privilege will not be invoked until the compelling need for its exercise has been clearly demonstrated and the request has been approved first by the Attorney General and then by the President.
2. A Cabinet officer or any other Government official who also holds a position as a member of the President's personal staff shall comply with any reasonable request to testify in his non-White House capacity, provided that the performance of his duties will not be seriously impaired thereby. If the official believes that the request raises a substantial question as to the need for invoking executive privilege, he shall comply with the procedures set forth in my memorandum of March 24, 1969.
3. A member or former member of the President's personal staff normally shall follow the well-established precedent and decline a request for a formal appearance before a committee of the Congress. At the same time, it will continue to be my policy to provide all necessary and relevant information through informal contacts between my present staff and committees of the Congress in ways which preserve intact the constitutional separation of the branches.
Note the striking similarity to the current administration not only in the breadth of the privilege claimed, but also in the anodyne assurances that the privilege will not be abused in any way whatsoever. Also note the familiar emphasis on toothless, "informal contacts."