We're talking about the end of the Constitution and 225 years of constitutional history and Leahy's proposal is "extremely dangerous"

the release of the secret bush administration legal memos is stirring up a righteous storm...

raw story...

His presidency now a smoldering memory, Harper's contributing editor Scott Horton thinks that perhaps he wasn't kidding after all. In a March 3 column, Horton extrapolated on "George W. Bush's Disposable Constitution," expanding on his thoughts during a Thursday broadcast of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

Since the Monday release of nine previously-secret Bush administration legal memos claiming that the president has the power to ignore the Constitution when fighting terrorism, experts have almost unanimously denounced both their legal reasoning and their conclusions.

"These memos provide the very definition of tyranny," Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Tuesday. "These memos include everything that a petty despot would want."

Olbermann's Thursday guest was just as strident as Turley in his view of the prior administration.

"We may not have realized it at the time, but in the period from late 2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship," wrote Horton in his Harper's article.

here's scott horton talking with keith olbermann...



and, in spite of my support for patrick leahy's "truth commission," i find the point that michael ratner makes in talking with amy goodman on democracy now, rather compelling...

I think essentially that the Leahy commission is an excuse for non-prosecution. It’s essentially saying, “Let’s put some stuff on the public record. Let’s immunize people. And then,” as he even said, “let’s turn the page and go forward.” That’s really an excuse for non-prosecution. And in the face of what we’ve seen in this country, which is essentially a coup d’etat, a presidential dictatorship and torture, it’s essentially a mouse-like reaction to what we’ve seen. And it’s being set up really by a liberal establishment that is really, in some ways, in many ways, on the same page as the establishment that actually carried out these laws. And it’s saying, “OK, let’s expose it, and then let’s move on.”

[...]

[T]here’s a lot of pressure in this country right now for prosecutions. I mean, the polls indicate that people want to see a criminal investigation. We’ve had open—open and notorious admissions of waterboarding by people like Cheney. And we know that waterboarding is torture, even according to Obama.

So, how do you diffuse that pressure? And one way you diffuse it is you set up a, quote, “truth commission” that’s going to give immunity to people. And then, as Leahy himself says—the word he used, I think, is that he objects to those “fixated” on prosecution. Well, you know, it’s a legal requirement that you prosecute torturers in your country. And yet, he calls us “fixated” on it and wants to make this excuse.

[...]

This is not about mistakes. This is about fundamental lawbreaking, about the disposal of the Constitution, and about the end of treaties. So I think, actually, that Leahy’s current proposal is extremely dangerous.

ratner goes on to spell out in detail the horrifying extent of what had been put in place under the bush administration...

[W]hat we see in these memos—and I recommend them to everybody, because you read these, you are seeing essentially the legal underpinnings of a police state or a dictatorship of the president. There’s no doubt about it. That’s what it is, and it’s not theoretical. ... [W]hat happened here was one of these memos said the military could operate in the United States, and operate in the United States despite the Posse Comitatus law, which prohibits the military from operating in the United States. And when it operates—this is really extraordinary—they can arrest and detain—“arrest” is not the right word—kidnap anyone they want and send them to a detention place anywhere in the world without any kind of law.

And then, on top of that, they can disregard the First Amendment. So this conversation we’re having right now, they could say, “Well, this is harmful to the national security of the United States”—that’s what these memos say—“this type of conversation is harmful, and we can ban this conversation.” And then they could put the military at the door to the firehouse and come in and say the Fourth Amendment, the one that protects us against unlawful searches, that the military could walk in here, search all of us and see if we have anything they don’t like on us. So, no First Amendment, no Fourth Amendment, no Fifth Amendment—essentially, the end of the Constitution and 225 years of constitutional history.

yes, it's hair-raising stuff, but nothing that folks like me and and number of others have been saying all along... something else that many of us have been saying is that we simply MUST have accountability for these shocking abuses... nothing else than facing facts square in the face is going to put this behind us...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

U.S. Lawyers: "We believe the Bush administration has committed numerous offenses against the Constitution and may have violated federal laws..."

turning up the heat...

Lawyers Stepping Up
Katrina vanden Heuvel

We are lawyers in the United States of America. As such, we have all taken an oath obligating us to defend the Constitution and the rule of law…. We believe the Bush administration has committed numerous offenses against the Constitution and may have violated federal laws…. Moreover, the administration has blatantly defied congressional subpoenas, obstructing constitutional oversight …. Thus, we call on House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy to launch hearings into the possibility that crimes have been committed by this administration in violation of the Constitution…. We call for the investigations to go where they must, including into the offices of the President and the Vice President. -- American Lawyers Defending the Constitution

Over one thousand lawyers – including former Governor Mario Cuomo and former Reagan administration official Bruce Fein – have signed onto the above statement demanding wide-ranging investigative hearings into unconstitutional and potentially criminal activity by the Bush administration.

In a conference call with reporters yesterday, Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and winner of the 2007 Puffin/Nation Prize for Creative Citizenship, said: "The majority of lawyers in this country understand that the Bush administration has really gone off the page of constitutional rights and off the page of fundamental rights, and is willing to push the Congress to restore those rights." Ratner said he was "dismayed" that a Democratic majority has failed "to push on key illegalities… the torture program, and now the destruction of the tapes involving the torture program; the warrantless wiretapping, the denial of habeas corpus, the secret sites/rendition program, special trials, and of course what we now know is the firing of US Attorneys scandal…. The minimal that absolutely is needed to get us back on the page of law is to have serious investigative hearings that go up the chain of command and figure out who is responsible for what."

the sons-of-bitches need to be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail... stronger letter to follow...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Leahy and contempt of Congress - too little, too late

sigh...

Dear [name redacted],

It should never have had to come to this.

Yesterday, on a bipartisan vote of 12-7, the Senate Judiciary Committee ruled that White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove are in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas issued in the U.S. Attorneys investigation. As Chairman of the Committee, I have gone to real lengths to avoid this sort of legal confrontation, but after many months the White House has yet to cooperate with these requests from our investigation -- and the American people deserve the truth.

The President denies any involvement in the political firings of Justice Department officials. Yet he and his staff continue to hide behind the veil of "executive privilege." They have essentially asserted that this privilege -- historically applied very narrowly -- covers all documents and information in their possession. It's a dramatic departure from precedent, and the Bush-Cheney administration's blanket claim of immunity from congressional subpoenas flies in the face of our system of checks and balances.

This is not about pulling a partisan "gotcha" or scoring political points. After all, Committee members of both parties supported yesterday's ruling. No, this is about defending Congress's oversight function and protecting the right of the American people to know the whole truth about the mass firings of attorneys at the Justice Department. Withholding critical evidence requested by a subpoena is a serious crime, and it's time we reminded the President and his staff that they are not above the law.

The White House's refusal to cooperate with our investigation casts further doubt on its contention that it had nothing to do with the political firings of Justice Department officials. In fact, it's now quite clear that political officials in the White House pressured federal prosecutors to bring partisan cases and sought retribution against those who refused.

Since World War II, presidential advisers have testified before Congress 74 times, either voluntarily or compelled by subpoenas -- never once refusing to comply. Executive privilege should not be invoked to prevent investigations into wrongdoing, and certainly should not prevail.

Thank you for your support for holding the Bush-Cheney Administration accountable as we get to the bottom of the mass firings of U.S. attorneys.

Sincerely,

Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senator

another forlorn plea...

Dear Senator Leahy,

As I've written previously, I am in full support of all of your desperately needed efforts to hold an outlaw presidential administration accountable. I have witnessed over seven years of determined attacks on our precious Constitution and willful repudiation of the rule of law. I have also been devastated to see Congress continuously, even with a Democratic majority, capitulate and seemingly collaborate with the criminals in the executive branch.

Contempt of Congress charges are not only highly appropriate, but long overdue. However, with the Bush administration's announced intent to prevent the Department of Justice from prosecuting contempt citations, I have little doubt that the contempt of Congress charges will amount to little more than an empty gesture. In my opinion, had you been more forceful and timely on this issue, you would already be at the point of invoking inherent contempt, but that is water under the bridge now.

Unfortunately, Senator Leahy, our nation is already well past the point where what should be an unprecedented use of contempt charges will serve to restore the constitutionally-specified checks and balances and necessary oversight granted to the United States Congress. It is abundantly clear that the current occupants of the White House, via the revelation of so-called legal opinions that were vividly presented by Senator Whitehouse in his recent Senate floor speech, will never accede to any dimunition of their vision of unfettered executive power.

My point is this, Senator Leahy. The current administration will continue its outlaw reign unabated until they are removed from office, and waiting until 20 January 2009 for that to happen is putting our country at even more critical risk than it is already. Moreover, allowing the mechanisms of unchecked power to remain in place for a new president to decide to use or not use is an even more unacceptable risk.

I beg you, Senator Leahy, take a stand for me, my fellow citizens, your country, and your oath to preserve and protect the United States Constitution. I realize that you have many competing obligations, but all of them pale when placed up against the need to defend the Constitution and rule of law without which our nation, as we know it, would cease to exist. Throw all of your available energy and resources toward ridding us of the scourge called the Bush administration. I'm counting on you.

Best regards,

rather than composing all these letters from scratch, i really should compose a piece of boiler-plate... "dear [insert name here]..."

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Let the constitutional crisis begin!

the sooner, the better...

During a press briefing yesterday, presidential counselor Dan Bartlett signaled that the White House will fight congressional efforts to have Karl Rove testify about his role in the U.S. Attorney purge.

I find it highly unlikely that a member of the White House staff would testify publicly to these matters, but that doesn’t mean we won’t find other ways to try to share that information.

Press Secretary Tony Snow was also resistant:

Well, as you know, Ed, it has been traditional in all White Houses not to have staffers testify on Capitol Hill. So I think what we have been trying to do is to work in a way to be as forthcoming with members of Congress — you saw all the emails coming out today — give them all the information so that they can make a fair judgment about it.

fortunately, we have leahy...

Thankfully, Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VA) isn’t backing down. Last night on PBS, Leahy referred to Tim Griffen as Rove’s “acolyte,” and said he will “insist” that senior White House officials testify “in public, in sworn testimony, under oath“:

I intend to bring the attorney general up here. I am requesting several other people to come up here, certainly Mr. Sampson, Ms. Miers, I assume eventually Karl Rove. If they don’t come, then I’ll seek to subpoena them up here, because the story changes almost every time we pick up the newspaper. […]

What I want to find out is what happened, why we’ve been given different stories. And I want those answers, not in an informal briefing; I want those answers in public, in sworn testimony, under oath before my committee. As chairman, that’s what I insist.

< rubs hands together in fevered anticipation > can't wait...

(thanks to think progress...)

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments