Bruce Fein instead of Mukasey?

doomsy at the liberal doomsayer tipped me off to this letter from bruce fein in last sunday's nyt...

To The Editor:

Re “Clinton Plans to Consider Giving Up Some Powers” (news article, Oct. 24): The American Freedom Agenda, an organization of conservatives founded last March 20 to restore checks and balances and protections against government abuses, requested all presidential aspirants, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, to sign an American Freedom Pledge.

They were asked to renounce the following powers if elected: torture; presidential signing statements; indefinite detentions of American citizens as enemy combatants; military commissions that combine judge, jury and prosecutor; spying on American citizens in contravention of federal statutes on the president’s say-so alone; kidnapping, imprisoning and torturing suspected terrorists abroad; executive privilege to shield the executive branch from Congressional oversight; prosecuting journalists under the Espionage Act for exposing national security abuses; listing organizations as terrorist groups based on secret evidence; suspending the writ of habeas corpus during the conflict with international terrorism; and invoking the state secrets privilege to deny victims of constitutional wrongdoing any judicial remedy. Senator Clinton has balked at signing the pledge, as have all other candidates except Representative Ron Paul.

Bruce Fein
Chairman, American Freedom Agenda

a little bit about the american freedom agenda, an organization i hadn't heard of but am very glad to see operating...

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. 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; 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.

american freedom agenda's principals are...

- Bruce Fein

- Bob Barr

- John Whitehead

- Richard Viguerie

some heavy-duty conservatives there, for sure, but preserving our constitution is certainly not a left-right, conservative-liberal, democratic-republican issue...

oh, btw, doomsy thinks that fein should be nominated for attorney general in place of the increasingly beleaguered mukasey... i don't disagree...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Liberty Huggers

i have added this blog to a group of other sites that have banded together in common cause... as the site description on pruning shears states...

Since 2001, there has been a nearly unprecedented expansion of executive power in the United States government. Our constitution was crafted deliberately to maintain a system of checks and balances on all three branches of government. This blog serves to make the issue of executive power the main issue in the forthcoming 2008 presidential debates.

• American Civil Liberties Union
• Alex Jones' InfoWars.net
• And, yes, I DO take it personally
• Cato Institute
• Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Lotus - Surviving a Dark Time
• Mills River Progressive
• over the cliff, onto the rocks
• Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances
• Pruning Shears
• Scary S---

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

"Their wrongdoing is extreme, and only equally extreme corrective measures will suffice."

oh, man... the temperature is going up - FAST...! (and, if it isn't, it needs to...)

glenn greenwald, in a typically excellent piece...

[Y]et again, the President declares the other two branches of government impotent and himself omnipotent. But we have had such a crisis for the last five years. We have just chosen to ignore it, to acquiesce to it, to allow it to fester.

There is no magic force that is going to descend from the sky and strike with lighting at George Bush and Dick Cheney for so flagrantly subverting our constitutional order. The Founders created various checks for confronting tyrannical abuses of power, but they have to be activated by political will and the courage to confront it. That has been lacking. Hence, they have seized omnipotent powers with impunity.

At this point, the blame rests not with the Bush administration. They have long made clear what they believe and, especially, what they are. They have been rubbing in our faces for several years the fact that they believe they can ignore the law and do what they want because nobody is willing to do anything about it. Thus far, they have been right, and the blame rests with those who have acquiesced to it.


It has been six months since the Democrats took over Congress. Yes, they have commenced some investigations and highlighted some wrongdoing. But that is but the first step, not the ultimate step, which we desperately need. Where are the real confrontations needed to vindicate the rule of law and restore constitutional order? No reasonable person can dispute that in the absence of genuine compulsion (and perhaps even then), the administration will continue to treat "the law" as something optional, and their power as absolute. Their wrongdoing is extreme, and only equally extreme corrective measures will suffice.

there can be no more delay... we've put off the inevitable for far too long... every day that passes, the danger to our constitutional republic increases dramatically... what's even worse is that in-your-face confrontation is only going to increase the danger, a reason perhaps why it hasn't been yet undertaken, but, seriously, what other choices do we have...?

(thanks to meteor blades at daily kos...)

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The NYT has concerns for our Constitution

i wish to hell they'd address our constitutional crisis head-on instead of beating around the bush... (sorry, that was a rotten but completely intentional pun, a variety harder to swallow than the unintentional kind...)

President Bush is notorious for issuing statements taking exception to hundreds of bills as he signs them.

[...]

The Bush administration’s disregard for these laws is part of its extraordinary theory of the “unitary executive.” The administration asserts that the president has the sole authority to supervise and direct executive officers, and that Congress and the courts cannot interfere. This theory, which has no support in American history or the Constitution, is a formula for autocracy.

[...]

When the Bush presidency ends, there will be a great deal of damage to repair, much of it to the Constitutional system. Congress should begin now to restore the principle that even the president and those who work for him are not above the law.

so, nyt, please tell me, what the fracking hell does "begin now to restore" mean...? hmmmmm...? what precisely would that look like...? hmmmmmm...? we've got a major, MAJOR, problem here in this country, namely, that we are losing on a daily basis everything that we were founded on... so, CALL IT FOR WHAT IT IS, WOULDJA PLEASE...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

God bless Robert Parry who dares to name our country's crisis for what it REALLY is

the reality is staring us right in the face and i simply do not understand why it's so hard to grasp...

In years to come, historians may look back on U.S. press coverage of George W. Bush’s presidency and wonder why there was not a single front-page story announcing one of the most monumental events of mankind’s modern era – the death of the American Republic and the elimination of the “unalienable rights” pledged to “posterity” by the Founders.

The historians will, of course, find stories about elements of this extraordinary event – Bush’s denial of habeas corpus rights to a fair trial, his secret prisons, his tolerance of torture, his violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, his “signing statements” overriding laws, the erosion of constitutional checks and balances.

But the historians will scroll through front pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and every other major newspaper – as well as scan the national network news and the 24-hour cable channels – and find not a single story connecting the dots, explaining the larger picture: the end of a remarkable democratic experiment which started in 1776 and which was phased out sometime in the early 21st century.

How, these historians may ask, did the U.S. press corps miss one of history’s most important developments? Was it a case like the proverbial frog that would have jumped to safety if tossed into boiling water but was slowly cooked to death when the water was brought to a slow boil?

Or was it that journalists and politicians intuitively knew that identifying too clearly what was happening in the United States would have compelled them to action, and that action would have meant losing their jobs and livelihoods? Perhaps, too, they understood that there was little they could do to change the larger reality, so why bother?

As for the broader public, did the fear and anger generated by the 9/11 attacks so overwhelm the judgment of Americans that they didn’t care that President Bush had offered them a deal with the devil, he would promise them a tad more safety in exchange for their liberties?

And what happened to the brave souls who did challenge Bush’s establishment of an authoritarian state? Why, the historians may wonder, did the American people and their representatives not rise up as Bush systematically removed honorable public servants who did their best to uphold the nation’s laws and principles?

dear mr. parry,

if you wrote about nothing else but this from now on, i would not blame you for a minute... the more i observe, read, deduce, and put the puzzle pieces together, the more i realize that the bush regime's wholesale negating of the united states constitution and the establishment of an authoritarian state is the single most dangerous event of modern times... it needs to be shouted from the rooftops, it needs a paul revere sounding the alarm, it needs the loudest, most credible voices pounding it home every day until people pay attention... i appreciate more than i can say your efforts in this regard... at least there are a few who see what is REALLY going on...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Larisa rightly asks, why is "Nifong disbarred, but not Gonzales?"

it's very simple... our president believes in the rule of law for everyone but himself and those he chooses to protect... the only way that gonzales will be removed is forcibly, and that can only come from congress taking its responsibility as guardian of the constitution seriously...

larisa...

If the Attorney General has tampered with a witness, obstructed justice, held in US custody American citizens without the benefit of an attorney or a court appearance, allowed foreign treaties and domestic law to be violated by giving his opinion that they could be by the President, violated separation of powers, lied to Congress and under oath, installed political cronies in positions to be top law enforcement officials, signed off on an illegal wiretapping program, and so forth - what example does that set for all prosecutors and law enforcement officials? Gonzales makes Nifong look like an honorable man, yet the latter is disbarred while the former continues in his post.

our country is being trashed from within while those who hold the public trust dither...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

How to create a shadow government and an authoritarian state, a Cheney/Addington production

the nyt makes a good case, not only for how cheney has privatized the vice-presidency, but also for how he functions as more of a shadow dictator than either a vice president or a shadow president...


Dick Cheney

points to consider...

• wears the cloak of invisibility in secure "disclosed" locations [quotes added]

• disdain for accountability

• unconcerned about little things like checks and balances and traditional American notions of judicial process

• the driving force behind the Bush administration’s theory of the “unitary executive”

• pays little attention to old-fangled notions of the separation of powers

• does not overly bother himself about the bright line that should exist between his last job as chief of the energy giant Halliburton and his current one on the public payroll

they neglected to mention that darth even refuses to disclose the names of his staff... we do, however, know the name of one of them, and, next to karl rove and darth himself, may be the scariest of them all...


David Addington

[David Addington] has played a central role in shaping the Bush Administration's legal strategy for the war on terror. Known as the New Paradigm, this strategy rests on a reading of the Constitution that few legal scholars share-namely, that the President has the authority to disregard virtually all legal boundaries, if national security demands it. Under this framework, statutes prohibiting torture, secret detention, and warrantless surveillance have been set aside.

[...]

After 9/11, Addington dominated the debate over how to frame the Administration's legal response to the attacks. On September 25th, the Justice Dept.'s Office of Legal Counsel issued a memo declaring that the Pres. had inherent constitutional authority to take whatever military actions he deemed necessary, not just in response to 9/11, but in the prevention of future attacks. Another memo sanctioned torture when the Pres. deems it necessary. Addington either drafted the memos himself or advised those who drafted them.

keep in mind, all of these unfettered claims to power are only laying a precedent for future administrations, and, until they are "repudiated," they will continue to lie there, ticking like the time bomb they are...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments