Jan. 19, 2007
Government's Battle Of The Branches
Andrew Cohen: Congress Is Suffering For Not Standing Up To The White House
-
Photo
(CBS/AP)
-
Interactive
Gitmo Tribunals
Detainees on trial, photos and a history of the naval base.
-
Interactive
Domestic Surveillance
The debate over the Bush administration's controversial wiretapping program.
Just a few hours after the Senate again was humiliated by the White House over the National Security Agency's domestic spying program, Congress and the rest of us were offered a vivid reminder Thursday of the price our nation pays when our legislators fail to show resolve in the face of such executive branch hubris.
The humiliation came in the morning from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who brashly told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he wasn't sure the Bush administration would allow its members to see a court order that effectively transferred jurisdiction over the domestic spy program from the executive branch back to the judiciary. Given that the Congress created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court nearly 30 years ago, the judge who issued the order said publicly that she had no problem showing it to Congress, and that Democrats now control both houses, Gonzales' position was remarkably dismissive.
The reminder came in the afternoon from the Pentagon, in the form of new military rules designed to finally trigger the prosecution of hundreds of the detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Military officials were immediately pilloried for some of the new procedures but they were simply following the lead of the legislators, who late last year passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In the end, after much early earnest talk about justice and fairness, Congress capitulated grandly to the White House on some of the most important provisions in the Commissions Act — and the new rules, for better and worse, are the result.
Were enough legislators able to absorb the unmistakable link between their fecklessness toward the administration and the bad policy that results from it? Did it help that both the yin and the yang of this occurred within hours of one another? We'll know when we learn whether and to what extent the legislators react to Gonzales' don't-worry-your-pretty-little-head-about-it attitude. We'll know if and when the newly-constituted Congress decides to get back involved in the legal and political debate over how the Guantanamo detainees ought to be treated at trial. We'll know if 2007 turns out to be different than 2006 or 2005 or 2004 when it comes to the interaction between the two branches.
But here is how that relationship stands at the beginning of the year. The New York Times on Friday dryly described Gonzales' stand. "Pressed repeatedly for details," wrote David Johnston and Scott Shane, "Mr. Gonzales offered little new information and would not agree to provide more documents to explain the decision. He declined to answer questions about why the administration had reversed itself after saying for more than a year that the program could not operate effectively under court supervision." In other words, even when the White House is forced by legal and political realities to back down from its most extreme position, it's not inclined to be conciliatory or cooperative.
The senators seemed furious at this continued lack of respect. Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., talked about an "Alice in Wonderland" world where the executive branch was telling the judicial branch not to cooperate with the legislative branch. But there is a gulf between expressing frustration in a Senate hearing room and actually doing something about it. Congress could amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act next week if it wanted to and thus end the entire charade over who gets to oversee whom when it comes to domestic surveillance that is conducted without prior court approval. It could have amended FISA any time last year, too — but it had no will to meet the challenge.
What Congress did choose to do last year was to fail and/or refuse to answer all of the important questions raised by our government's efforts to prosecute the terror detainees at Gitmo. Even though the new military rules are better than the old rules — the ones that were ceremoniously dumped by the United States Supreme Court — there is still a significant question whether they go far enough in giving the detainees certain core due process rights. We (and Congress) will have no one but ourselves to blame if the new-and-improved rules still generate a new round of legal challenges generating a new round of Supreme Court review generating another ruling that is disappointing to White House officials.
For example, a detainee may be sentenced to death under the new rules based upon hearsay evidence alone or by testimony obtained through "coercion" (whatever that means) so long as a military judge is convinced in either or both cases that the testimony is reliable. In other words, a witness whom a judge determines has been coerced to speak still can help send a guy to the military's equivalent of death row. Pentagon lawyers were quick to point out that such military determinations could be appealed to federal civilian courts, which ought to reasonably appease some civil libertarians.
The problem is that because so much discretion will be given to the presiding judge of the tribunals — to determine when "coercion" taints the testimony it produces, for example — we ought to expect many of those appeals, time-consuming and legal confusing, which ought to infuriate those in the White House who had hoped that by hectoring Congress last December into passing the Commissions Act the tribunal process would begin, be expedited, and generally shielded from federal review.
There you have it. We know what has happened recently when the White House has arrogantly tried to impose its will upon Congress. We were reminded of it on Thursday from the Pentagon. And we know from our own eyes how the White House is treating Congress even now over the latest domestic spying twist. So it's all on our legislators now. All of it. And how they react to this new challenge from the administration, this new defiance from its co-equal branch, will tell us a lot, early, about what the new Congress is all about and whether it's an improvement on the old one.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Video and Galleries from CourtWatch
-
Video
Blagojevich Indicted For Corruption
-
Video
Madoff Heads To Prison
-
Video
Landmark Legal Cases
He has overseen the justification of torture, wrongful imprisonment, mass-murder, and the routing of our Bill of Rights. He has openly admitted to ignoring restrictions on spying on Americans, because he found the applicable laws to be too restrictive. Gonzales has zero legitimate authority to do any of these things.
Gonzales should be hog-tied on the Senate floor, and immediately shipped to Guantanimo Bay, while war-crimes and treason proceedings are prepared against him.
That's not far off the mark. Direct and knowledgable violation of the constitution by the executive is considered treason. They are walking the borderline. Will Bush and company turn back before it is too late? I have to believe even Republicans in congress are getting tired of being told they are meaningless.
Destroying it, ignoring it, calling it foolish as the Bush administration does should be getting every true American up in arms.
Rafterman1, SusanHelit, feelfree1:
First of all, the only way to commit treason is to give aid and comfort to the enemy, or to levy war against the United States. That's written in Article III of the constitution. You obviously don't know what you're talking about when you say "checks and balances", and "Bush has thrown aside our constitution".
If a foreign national comes to the U.S. to levy war against it, they don't have any rights, if a citizen is found to be doing the same, they are guilty of treason. Funny you don't mind the idea of loyal Americans, who are trying to protect your freedom, getting thrown in prison with no rights, but you can't stand it when foreigners or traitors are imprisoned: professional ethics. Your constant complaining and statements such as those things I%u2019ve covered, this could be considered giving aid to the enemy. That borders treason. The Hague and Geneva conventions stipulate that uninformed guerrillas, and insurgents are not provided protection by those particular commissions, so the administration isn't guilty of anything. Your conspiracy theories, and accusations that the war is being played is so baseless, I don't know how even morons could come up with it.
It isn't the Bush who began usurping the power of congress; it was Franklin Roosevelt, and later Kennedy. Every president since then has made use of the wide powers, but these powers are not without limits. Bush has done nothing more to widen the breach than ay other president before him. As a matter of fact, the last one that abused worse than GWB could even hope to was: Bill Clinton, and he abused it so badly that there was talk of making constitutional amendments limiting the president's traditional powers. Anyway, congress still has much power collectively, but they don't see a need to exercise some of it, specifically: the power of impeachment, and removal from office. George Bush hasn't done anything worthy of impeachment: he invaded Iraq with congressional approval, the spy programs are directed against terrorists and it it's extremely hard to mistake a terrorist from something else, and all those in Gitmo: the authorities got warrants. You say he "lied", you mean he made a mistake? He didn't know there were no WMDs (there may or may not have been, but we didn%u2019t find them), but you claim he did. The only thing that supports these allegations is your unfounded hatred. This is a fact; the president of the United States deserves more support from within. No, you give him hatred, and give our enemies sympathy. As I said: professional ethics.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." -- Henry A. Kissinger
You are disgracing yourself.
I'm disgracing myself? That's comedy. I don't call for a disgracful American withdrawl from Iraq, I don't criticize any sitting president in the way you do (never have, never will), I don't call for peace in harmony in the face of an ememy that makes Hitler look like a nice guy.
About your Kissinger quote; Kissinger is an immoral lier, and I don't care about what he says. I wouldn't truts him if he said good morning. I didn't say you instigated war; all I said is you should give your leader more support. Nobody is trying to make you support your country in the face of an enemy that hates you. Why would they? That would be a moral thing for you to do, and we know where liberals stand on morals in regard to their country don't we?
Re: "I don't call for a disgracful American withdrawl from Iraq"
Whether you call for it or not, the damage has been done, and the outcome of the illegal lie-based misadventure remains the same.
Re: "Kissinger is an immoral lier, and I don't care about what he says. I wouldn't truts him if he said good morning."
Hey, look at that! We agree on something!
Re: "all I said is you should give your leader more support"
I would never accept an illegitimate treasonous fraud as my leader.
www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html
Re: "we know where liberals stand on morals in regard to their country don't we?"
Speak for yourself. I don't know this, but I am not very interested either.
These PNAC thugs have been kicking us in the face ever since the 2000 election. It's time to kick back!
Re: "These PNAC thugs have been kicking us in the face ever since the 2000 election. It's time to kick back!"
Indeed it is!
Senator McCain is correct: those opposed to not a War on Terror but Bush's misguided adventure ought to vote to cut off funding for an escalation of American forces in Iraq.
Remember it took twenty years before American "leaders" accepted the reality that US forces could not win in another country's civil war. They could only contribute to the body count.
1.As I said before, treason is clearly defined in Article III in the United States constitution as:
a. Levying war against the United States
b. Giving aid and comfort to its enemies.
2. He did not lie. There were no cell in Iraq, but neither are there any in Syria, because they don%u2019t need to operate as a cell in these countries. Why? Because it%u2019s not illegal.
3. There is no such thing as an illegal war.
4. I don't like Kissinger at all, but I could have used different words. Those words were exaggerations. He is definitely anti-American like many others in State.
5. In the comment made by Goering, your point was that Bush has dragged us along in a war where he claims we have been attacked. We have been attacked many times over. Our embassy in Lebanon, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the U.S.S. Cole in South Africa, the 1993 bombing of the WTC, and finally the WTC on 9/11. We have been attacked. They started it, and we're going to finish it. Don't you want it to come to a victorious conclusion?
Re: "4. I don't like Kissinger at all"
Agreed.
Re: "5. In the comment made by Goering, your point was that Bush has dragged us along in a war where he claims we have been attacked. We have been attacked many times over. Our embassy in Lebanon, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the U.S.S. Cole in South Africa, the 1993 bombing of the WTC, and finally the WTC on 9/11. We have been attacked. They started it, and we're going to finish it."
You are pretty mixed up about chronology and about the perpetrators here. I suggest that you set your blind hatred and fear aside and do some reading.
Re: "Don't you want it to come to a victorious conclusion?"
What the hell are you talking about?
Re: "1.As I said before, treason is clearly defined in Article III in the United States constitution as:
"a. Levying war against the United States"
Fraudulently seizing power by way of election fraud, and dismantling the U.S. Constitution seems to meet this criteria.
"b. Giving aid and comfort to its enemies."
Bush routinely offers such support to Cheney, Gonzales, Rice etc. This clearly qualifies.
Re: "2. He did not lie. There were no cell in Iraq, but neither are there any in Syria, because they don%u2019t need to operate as a cell in these countries."
Hard to tell what the *** your are talking about here, but the Bush League case for war was unmistakably based on a mountain of known lies.
Re: "3. There is no such thing as an illegal war."
Wars which conform to applicable international law and to the U.S. Constitution, are by definition, legal. Wars based in deception, hatred, fear, ignorance, and which violate such laws, are not legal, as I have already explained to you.
I know when liberals start losing an argument; they start looking for errors, and try to elude questions and the point of the argument, so don't try it. I've won enough arguments to know all the tricks.
I wasn't doing it in chronological order. Stop eluding the point, did these things happen: confirm or deny. "What am I talking about?%u201D Do you want us to win the war? It's a straightforward, yes or no question. Do you want us to win?
Re: "I know when liberals start losing an argument; they start looking for errors,"
Not sure how this comment is relevant to me or to our discussion.
Re: "It's a straightforward, yes or no question. Do you want us to win?"
What difference does it make whether or not I am in favor of an outcome which has less than zero possibility?
Do you want the U.S. to "win" in Viet Nam? Yes or no? Who cares?
My point is: if there were no Al Quieda cells in Iraq before we invaded, that's because they operated in plain sight. They hid in plain sight. Cells are only necessary in a country that doesn't support terrorism or the spread of Islam. Therefore, there wouldn't be any cells in Iraq, there would be storefronts that said: 'DeathToTheInfidels Inc'. Understand?
The Supreme Court in 2000 ruled there wouldn't be any more recounts, so since George Bush came out on top of every recount, he won by the Court's standards. He won again undisputedly in 2004, so he%u2019s legitimate by the court%u2019s standard and the people%u2019s standards. I noticed how every time the Republicans win, the democrats start blaming the companies that supply the voting machines, but when the democrats win, the republicans go quietly, honorably, and graciously. In other words the democrats either gloat or scream like bamboos, the republicans either leave power graciously or they enter it graciously. Even if there was voting fraud in the election, that wouldn't be treason, it would simply be a felony punishable by prison. Treason is punishable by death.
On the subject of voting fraud, it's interesting that this last election, a company was nearly indicted for voting fraud in favor of the Democratic Party. However, before legal proceedings could be initiated: the company sold out to another company. The company was a subsidiary of a Venezuelan company. I smell a scandal.
The administration members are enemies because they are trying to win a war in favor of us, and in a way you disagree with? You are so twisted it's a wonder you can type. They have done nothing to support any allegations of illegal activity or personal lobbying. As I said: unintelligent, unfounded hatred.
"Not sure how this comment is relevant to me or to our discussion"
Plenty of relevance, because you're doing it again when you say: "What difference does it make whether or not I am in favor of an outcome which has less than zero possibility?", and again when you say, "Do you want the U.S. to "win" in Viet Nam? Yes or no? Who cares?" You don't care whether your country wins or not? That is perverse. I'm appalled. You accuse me of being full of hate. Can you see why? There is plenty of opportunity of winning, but the media and people like you encourage our enemy by saying things like what you just said. You accuse Bush of being treasonous... Technically you're not, but there is a difference between someone who commits an act of treason, and who's a traitor. George Bush has the credit of being neither, you don't.
Re: "if there were no Al Quieda cells in Iraq before we invaded, that's because they operated in plain sight. They hid in plain sight."
Sounds like you are addicted to faith-based nonsense. If you can provide anything to support this claim, you are welcome to present it. Someone might believe it.
Re: "The Supreme Court in 2000 ruled there wouldn't be any more recounts.."
Please check out the URL that I provided for you:
www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html
The fraud that I am referring to occurred prior to any counting. You are building a straw-man here.
The 2004 vote pResidential fraud efforts are described at:
www.blackboxvoting.org
and www.gregpalast.com
You offer many dubious claims, completely absent of any support. Shall I just take your word for it?
Re: "The administration members are enemies because they are trying to win a war in favor of us, and in a way you disagree with?"
They are enemies because they have fraudulently seized power, disgraced our country with illegal war of aggression, looted our economy in favor of their cronies, demonstrated complete contempt for human life, for basic decency, and for the rule of law, for starters.
They have betrayed our country and our Constitution, and they are the laughing stock of the universe, which is not a crime, but it is a shame.
You keep telling yourself that you have "won" something in Iraq, if it helps you feel better. I have no use for such faith-based delusional nonsense.
I would love to hear what it is that you hope to "win"?
Good luck with Viet Nam! I think youv'e got em' on the ropes!
"Sounds like you are addicted to faith-based nonsense. If you can provide anything to support this claim, you are welcome to present it. Someone might believe it."-posted by feelfree1
I don't, but the difference between you and I, is that you state opinions absolutely, and conveniently. The idea I mentioned is extremely possible, and it is called critical thinking. Do you have substantiated evidence that Bush played the election, other than anti-Bush, radical liberal websites run by people with IQs lower than 85? My point is: he was legitimately recognized as president, and conspiracy theories won%u2019t make it false.
RE: "The fraud that I am referring to occurred prior to any counting. You are building a straw-man here."
I'm building a straw man? Am I the won developing a conspiracy theory because I don't like the guy in office? This is what we call hypocrisy. You condemn me for putting forward an unsubstantiated opinion (by the way, it is a fact that you wouldn't need a cell in a country like Iraq used to be, and Iran is like now), sometimes called an educated guess, while you make absolute statements. You have no evidence other the website you mentioned? If you don't, you might as well say, "Well...he told me..." Bush legitimately won the election, you can buy into paranoid conspiracy theories from those who have nothing better to do than sit at home all day making websites about it, if it makes you feel better.
I hope my country wins the war is set out to win. I continue to pray for our victory and our troops, I continue to believe that we went there for legitimate purposes, you don't have to: I don't care what you do or believe. You are a traitor, by saying "I don't care" you say you don't care about the soldiers dying for your freedom to hate America, and Bush. You should try living in China; I have, and I'm telling you: you would last two minutes. You are a worthless lab result of the mainstream liberal media, and I'm finished arguing with you.
Closing statement: That statement above is the difference between the left and right, the difference between you and me, the difference that will cause a bloody merciless civil war. A civil war my side won%u2019t lose because we believe in the greater ideas that our country was founded upon more than the lives of people who hate their country. You can accuse me of being indifferent to human life, but that isn%u2019t so. I care about the lives that are being put in danger by the left%u2019s %u201Cideologies%u201D , I couldn%u2019t care less for traitors like you.
You pale to George Bush.
There was no "mandate" to end the war in November of last year, because the Democrats didn't win by much: they fell well below the national average when they won. They're tied in the senate, and have only about a 30-seat jump in the House: there was no "great mandate" as Pelosi said.
the law is the law and bush knows that if taken to the courts he will lose. there is no other way they could decide, but who in congress will do it? Reid? he's been hiding out in the senate for a long time. when are you gonna step up and do your job harry? pelosi? she's been there all along too and what have we heard from her. or any of them for that matter?
they whined a bit when bush took FISA away, but did they do anything else? absolutley not! what do you think they are? oh.....sorry, I forgot they know what they are....they're politicians. we don't need more politicians in washington we need people with spines!
FISA is the law and like it or not bush violated that law. he cannot invoke some vague war powers he claims to have to usurp the law.
the problem is that congress has no backbone. they have backed down on so many issues it's amazing. they passed FISA and it was signed into law. why don't they hold bush to it?
Re: "That statement above is the difference between the left and right, the difference between you and me, the difference that will cause a bloody merciless civil war."
Your opinion appears to be well out of date. A bloody and merciless civil war already exists in Iraq; a civil war which was instigated by people like John Negroponte.
You have failed to describe what it is that you hope to "win" in Iraq/Viet Nam. I have provided references for my claims, while you have offered none. You have built straw-men, and I have knocked them down.
I am not opposed to the Bush regime because "they are trying to win a war in favor of us". I am opposed to them because they are bloodthirsty, greedy, and illegitimate, because they have murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands of people, and because they have laid one of the most crippling moral and military deafeats in our nation's history, at our doorstep.
You seem to see major differences between the Corporate/ Israeli controlled Democrat and Republican Parties. I don't.
Lastly, you are confusing wild,baseless, unsupported assertions with critical thinking. What you are describing is, rather, faith/fear-based foolishness.
Re: "what this article points out is that congress is still basically spineless!"
"the law is the law and bush knows that if taken to the courts he will lose."
Great point! I look forward to Gonzales facing trial with his co-conspirators!
Re: "It's not just Congress who is not taking control, the Supreme Court has let the country down also."
That is an important point. Thank you for raising it.
Judicial Branch: Presided by Alberto 'Speed Freak' Gonzales
Rep Branch: Presided by: Alberto 'Speed Freak' Gonzales
Disagree?...Then, You are an 'enemy combatant' and Lord 'Inquistion' Alberto has "SPECIAL" PLANS FOR YOU!!!
What country YOU wind up in; what 'charges' are filed against YOU; only Lord Alberto 'the Inquisitor', ONLY KNOWS.
May, "the Force" be with you and a REAL God have mercy on your po' pathethic soul...
Totally collapsed/failed "eunich" Judiciary
-
by bluestardad
January 21, 2007 11:31 PM PST
- Chicken Hawk EXposed!
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 38 CommentsIs there some way to legally request Republican Third District Indiana Congressman Mark Souder excuse himself from the Votes on the Iraq War as he is a Certified Conscientious Objector with the United States Selective Service. If his moral views would not let him serve in Vietnam during war it should also excuse him from voting to send other people%u2019s children to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.