As Congress readies itself for the holidays, its Democratic members will return to their districts and states bearing meager evidence of their shallow triumphs. This year, as Terence Samuel of The American Prospect puts it, the story is that
"for what seems like the gazillionth time, they have capitulated to the White House on important priorities: They voted more money for the Iraq War this week; they allowed Michael Mukasey to be confirmed as attorney general even though he was ambivalent on the issue of torture; the illegal warrantless wiretapping continues, and nothing they have done has had any perceptible impact on ending the war in Iraq. They have lost dozens of votes on Iraq from cutting funding to lengthening leave time for soldiers. So despite the tough political climate in which President Bush finds himself?he has a 28 percent approval rating in some public polls he has consistently been portrayed as the winner while Democrats continue to wear the loser tag."
But one need look no further than the Wall Street Journal's editorial page to take in their smirking pleasure at the Democrats' failures. The Journal believes, of course, that
"the dysfunction amply shows that Democrats are attempting to govern with an agenda that is too far left even for many in their own party, never mind the country."
So what does "too far left" (and therefore, presumably, "crazy") mean? How about ending the Iraq war. A Rasmussen Reports poll found "that 57% of Americans would like to see U.S. troops brought home from Iraq within a year." Those are hardly crazy, wild-eyed, far-left numbers. (Polling data in Iraq reveals an even stronger view on US troop withdrawal: nearly half [47%] want an immediate withdrawal.)
Yet the Democratic-led Congress has given in again and again. They gave in by confirming Michael Mukasey as Attorney General, and now get to taste the first fruit of that tough and uncompromising vote.
And illegal wiretapping? As Samuel says, that continues unabated. It is but another in the laundry list that is Democratic capitulation.
All in all, a remarkably strong showing by the congressional majority.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
Mukasey to Congress: Do Not Interfere
If Attorney General Michael Mukasey's response to Congress (rejecting calls for information on the destruction of CIA interrogation video tapes) is a sign of his independence, as he says, he has an obstructionist's way of going about it. Indeed, if by independence he means from congressional oversight rather than from the administration, then we can brace ourselves for continued official ethical and moral degradation.
Mukasey's letter to Senate and House committee leaders said, in part,:
"The department has a long-standing policy of declining to provide nonpublic information about pending matters. This policy is based in part on our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence."
Not a promising statement (and was it presented with a straight face?) given that law enforcement decisions have been subject to political influence. Indeed, that's entirely the point. Congressional oversight is essential because of political interference at the Justice Department. Yet even more disturbing was his comment, in rejecting calls for a special prosecutor, that he was "aware of no facts at present" that would justify such a need. Apparently, the fact that the CIA interrogation tapes were destroyed doesn't constitute a "fact" that would justify such a move.
Another indication, should one be needed, that Mukasey's assertion of independence is questionable, was the White House threat to veto House legislation outlawing waterboarding. The administration objects to "the interrogation provision and other sections that would increase congressional oversight," says McClatchy reporter Renee Schoof. It's striking that the executive branch objects to the interrogation restriction since "the legislation would require the CIA and other intelligence agencies to use only interrogation techniques authorized for the military in the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations." It seems that's not sufficient for an administration that, despite a growing mountain of evidence (at least that which hasn't been destroyed) to the contrary, repeatedly insists "the United States does not torture."
It would be useful to look at the army manual and its prohibitions:
If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations, prohibited actions include, but are not limited to—
•
Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner.
•
Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes.
•
Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain.
•
“Waterboarding.”
•
Using military working dogs.
•
Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
•
Conducting mock executions.
• Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.
And yet the Justice Department, with astonishing, mind-bending arrogance, calls on Congress to delay its investigations into the destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes, arguing that the House Intelligence Committee's investigation created unidentified "significant risks" to the department's investigation. Mukasey, it seems, doesn't want Congressional "meddling."
House members Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) responded by saying "there is no basis upon which the attorney general can stand in the way of our work." It remains to be seen whether they'll succumb to his suggestion that they sit quietly and await his unbiased and objective report.
As Senate Republicans obediently move to strip out the language in the House legislation related to waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" (in the words of the White House), it's likely the House bill won't retain the appropriate restrictions against such abuse. God forbid, the last thing we need is a clutch of Republican senators exercising even a scintilla of independence from the administration.
The question now before Congress is, again, will it stand tall and pursue its oversight duties as required by the Constitution? Or will it, again, stand silent and passive in the face of a monstrous and lawless administration?
Mukasey's letter to Senate and House committee leaders said, in part,:
"The department has a long-standing policy of declining to provide nonpublic information about pending matters. This policy is based in part on our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence."
Not a promising statement (and was it presented with a straight face?) given that law enforcement decisions have been subject to political influence. Indeed, that's entirely the point. Congressional oversight is essential because of political interference at the Justice Department. Yet even more disturbing was his comment, in rejecting calls for a special prosecutor, that he was "aware of no facts at present" that would justify such a need. Apparently, the fact that the CIA interrogation tapes were destroyed doesn't constitute a "fact" that would justify such a move.
Another indication, should one be needed, that Mukasey's assertion of independence is questionable, was the White House threat to veto House legislation outlawing waterboarding. The administration objects to "the interrogation provision and other sections that would increase congressional oversight," says McClatchy reporter Renee Schoof. It's striking that the executive branch objects to the interrogation restriction since "the legislation would require the CIA and other intelligence agencies to use only interrogation techniques authorized for the military in the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations." It seems that's not sufficient for an administration that, despite a growing mountain of evidence (at least that which hasn't been destroyed) to the contrary, repeatedly insists "the United States does not torture."
It would be useful to look at the army manual and its prohibitions:
If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations, prohibited actions include, but are not limited to—
•
Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner.
•
Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes.
•
Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain.
•
“Waterboarding.”
•
Using military working dogs.
•
Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
•
Conducting mock executions.
• Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.
And yet the Justice Department, with astonishing, mind-bending arrogance, calls on Congress to delay its investigations into the destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes, arguing that the House Intelligence Committee's investigation created unidentified "significant risks" to the department's investigation. Mukasey, it seems, doesn't want Congressional "meddling."
House members Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) responded by saying "there is no basis upon which the attorney general can stand in the way of our work." It remains to be seen whether they'll succumb to his suggestion that they sit quietly and await his unbiased and objective report.
As Senate Republicans obediently move to strip out the language in the House legislation related to waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" (in the words of the White House), it's likely the House bill won't retain the appropriate restrictions against such abuse. God forbid, the last thing we need is a clutch of Republican senators exercising even a scintilla of independence from the administration.
The question now before Congress is, again, will it stand tall and pursue its oversight duties as required by the Constitution? Or will it, again, stand silent and passive in the face of a monstrous and lawless administration?
Thursday, December 13, 2007
US Senate: Condition Critical
Revealed, in a nutshell, is the problem with the Senate as a governing institution: "I think we are being consistent here against higher taxes, consistently against greater regulation, consistently against creating new causes of action in bill after bill after bill. It's a positive image of our vision of America. We have a pretty good sense that the public has figured out they are not too happy with this new Congress." (Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell [R-KY])
Really?
Senate Republican obstruction isn't in the least a "positive message" for America. And "the public" McConnell represents (read the monied class) is but a small slice of of the vast human landscape that comprises the nation's body politic.
A Pew Research Center analysis in September found that "the number of Americans who see themselves among the 'have-nots' of society has doubled over the past two decades, from 17% in 1988 to 34% today. In 1988, far more Americans said that, if they had to choose, they probably were among the 'haves' (59%) than the 'have-nots' (17%). Today, this gap is far narrower (45% 'haves' vs. 34% 'have-nots')."
McConnell's America is shrinking even as the real-world America grows, and grows impatient and unrepresented.
****
Gallup, meanwhile, has similar poll results assessing that the Democrats are "winning on issues." Among Gallup's findings: "Gallup finds the Democrats holding a considerable advantage over the Republicans in public perceptions of which party can handle a variety of national issues." On the following issues, Democrats lead Republicans by these percentages:
Economy: Dems. 50% Reps. 38%
Iraq: Dems: 48% Reps. 38%
Corruption in Government: Dems. 42% Reps. 29%
Protecting civil liberties: Dems 49% Reps. 36%
Senate rules have long allowed obstruction as a parliamentary tool to thwart the majority's legislative efforts. The Democrats did it. The Republicans do it. Theoretically, such obstruction induces both sides to compromise on legislation but the effect, in policy terms, is to bring to a halt attempts to shift policy (whether on Iraq, taxes or anything else).
Currently, Democrats have the slimmest of majorities in the Senate (51% to 49%) and since Republicans insist "[Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid . . . round up 60 votes -- to prevent a filibuster -- on everything from a contentious immigration bill to popular ethics legislation," little of importance to the public (such as a effort to wind down the Iraq war) will be accomplished.
****
So how long will this stalemate continue? As long as too many Americans believe the Republican Party is the sole, reliable standard bearer on moral issues (when campaign slogans against the scapegoated pass for "compassionate conservatism"), on immigration (where the party rains down contempt on immigrants even as it looks the other way when its business interests hire immigrants as a source of cheap labor), or on taxes (when "families in the middle fifth of the income distribution realized only a modest $6,600 increase in annual income between 1988 and 2004, while the top 1% of families saw their incomes rise from $839,100 to an average $1,259,700") while median household inflation-adjusted incomes are lower than they were in 1999.
This bondage will come to an end only when enough people realize they've trapped themselves by casting votes according to party affiliation rather than voting on the real, genuine and authentic merits of each candidate. But that's easily remedied come November.
Really?
Senate Republican obstruction isn't in the least a "positive message" for America. And "the public" McConnell represents (read the monied class) is but a small slice of of the vast human landscape that comprises the nation's body politic.
A Pew Research Center analysis in September found that "the number of Americans who see themselves among the 'have-nots' of society has doubled over the past two decades, from 17% in 1988 to 34% today. In 1988, far more Americans said that, if they had to choose, they probably were among the 'haves' (59%) than the 'have-nots' (17%). Today, this gap is far narrower (45% 'haves' vs. 34% 'have-nots')."
McConnell's America is shrinking even as the real-world America grows, and grows impatient and unrepresented.
****
Gallup, meanwhile, has similar poll results assessing that the Democrats are "winning on issues." Among Gallup's findings: "Gallup finds the Democrats holding a considerable advantage over the Republicans in public perceptions of which party can handle a variety of national issues." On the following issues, Democrats lead Republicans by these percentages:
Economy: Dems. 50% Reps. 38%
Iraq: Dems: 48% Reps. 38%
Corruption in Government: Dems. 42% Reps. 29%
Protecting civil liberties: Dems 49% Reps. 36%
Senate rules have long allowed obstruction as a parliamentary tool to thwart the majority's legislative efforts. The Democrats did it. The Republicans do it. Theoretically, such obstruction induces both sides to compromise on legislation but the effect, in policy terms, is to bring to a halt attempts to shift policy (whether on Iraq, taxes or anything else).
Currently, Democrats have the slimmest of majorities in the Senate (51% to 49%) and since Republicans insist "[Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid . . . round up 60 votes -- to prevent a filibuster -- on everything from a contentious immigration bill to popular ethics legislation," little of importance to the public (such as a effort to wind down the Iraq war) will be accomplished.
****
So how long will this stalemate continue? As long as too many Americans believe the Republican Party is the sole, reliable standard bearer on moral issues (when campaign slogans against the scapegoated pass for "compassionate conservatism"), on immigration (where the party rains down contempt on immigrants even as it looks the other way when its business interests hire immigrants as a source of cheap labor), or on taxes (when "families in the middle fifth of the income distribution realized only a modest $6,600 increase in annual income between 1988 and 2004, while the top 1% of families saw their incomes rise from $839,100 to an average $1,259,700") while median household inflation-adjusted incomes are lower than they were in 1999.
This bondage will come to an end only when enough people realize they've trapped themselves by casting votes according to party affiliation rather than voting on the real, genuine and authentic merits of each candidate. But that's easily remedied come November.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
FISA Court & Transparency: Never the Twain Shall Meet
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) yesterday refused to make public documents related to the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program.
In August the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sought the release of records related to "the scope of the government's authority to engage in the secret wiretapping of Americans," following the passage of the Protect America Act.
According to the ACLU's website, in an effort to secure passage of the act, "the president and members of Congress publicly made repeated veiled references to orders issued by the FISC earlier this year" as justification for the legislation.
At the time of the act's passage in August,
Ryan Singel of Wired.com, wrote that the act for the first time "removes the prohibition on warrantless spying on Americans abroad and gives the government wide powers to order communication service providers such as cell phone companies and ISPs to make their networks available to government eavesdroppers."
The act employs vague, easily manipulated language: it refers to "the acquisition of foreign intelligence information" even though this could allow the monitoring of American citizens abroad; it seeks to monitor people only "reasonably believed" to be outside the US, and permits the FISC to dismiss only "clearly erroneous" justifications provided by the Justice Department in its pursuit of intelligence targets. As the Washington Post phrased it at the time, the act "has been criticized as being too broad and lacking effective court oversight."
Among the many changes to FISA there are two of significance embodied in the Protect America Act: it allows spy agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA) to compel US-based ISPs and cell phone companies to open their networks to American intelligence (although they can challenge an order in FISC--but the entire process is secret); it also excludes oversight by the Inspector General who, as Singel notes, "uncovered abuses of the Patriot Act by the FBI after being ordered by Congress to audit the use of powerful self-issued subpoenas"; instead, oversight is to be monitored by the Attorney General who, of course, works for the administration.
The act also prohibits legal challenges such as the ones currently being litigated that have spurred calls for retroactive telecom immunity: "notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under this section.
The Director of the ACLU National Security Project, Jameel Jaffer, responded to the FISC decision by saying it was disappointing "both in its reasoning and its result. A federal court's interpretation of federal law should not be kept secret from the American public. The Bush administration is seeking expanded surveillance powers from Congress because of the rulings issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court earlier this year. Under this decision, those rulings may remain secret forever."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) spoke on the Senate floor on Friday and said:
"We will shortly consider making right the things that are wrong with the so-called Protect America Act, a second-rate piece of legislation passed in a stampede in August at the behest of the Bush Administration. It is worth for a moment considering why making this right is so important.
President Bush pressed this legislation not only to establish how our government can spy on foreign agents, but how his administration can spy on Americans. Make no mistake, the legislation we passed in August is significantly about spying on Americans – a business this administration should not be allowed to get into except under the closest supervision. We have a plain and tested device for keeping tabs on the government when it’s keeping tabs on Americans. It is our Constitution."
The challenge that lies before us is to determine whether our Constitution is still our Constitution.
In August the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sought the release of records related to "the scope of the government's authority to engage in the secret wiretapping of Americans," following the passage of the Protect America Act.
According to the ACLU's website, in an effort to secure passage of the act, "the president and members of Congress publicly made repeated veiled references to orders issued by the FISC earlier this year" as justification for the legislation.
At the time of the act's passage in August,
Ryan Singel of Wired.com, wrote that the act for the first time "removes the prohibition on warrantless spying on Americans abroad and gives the government wide powers to order communication service providers such as cell phone companies and ISPs to make their networks available to government eavesdroppers."
The act employs vague, easily manipulated language: it refers to "the acquisition of foreign intelligence information" even though this could allow the monitoring of American citizens abroad; it seeks to monitor people only "reasonably believed" to be outside the US, and permits the FISC to dismiss only "clearly erroneous" justifications provided by the Justice Department in its pursuit of intelligence targets. As the Washington Post phrased it at the time, the act "has been criticized as being too broad and lacking effective court oversight."
Among the many changes to FISA there are two of significance embodied in the Protect America Act: it allows spy agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA) to compel US-based ISPs and cell phone companies to open their networks to American intelligence (although they can challenge an order in FISC--but the entire process is secret); it also excludes oversight by the Inspector General who, as Singel notes, "uncovered abuses of the Patriot Act by the FBI after being ordered by Congress to audit the use of powerful self-issued subpoenas"; instead, oversight is to be monitored by the Attorney General who, of course, works for the administration.
The act also prohibits legal challenges such as the ones currently being litigated that have spurred calls for retroactive telecom immunity: "notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under this section.
The Director of the ACLU National Security Project, Jameel Jaffer, responded to the FISC decision by saying it was disappointing "both in its reasoning and its result. A federal court's interpretation of federal law should not be kept secret from the American public. The Bush administration is seeking expanded surveillance powers from Congress because of the rulings issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court earlier this year. Under this decision, those rulings may remain secret forever."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) spoke on the Senate floor on Friday and said:
"We will shortly consider making right the things that are wrong with the so-called Protect America Act, a second-rate piece of legislation passed in a stampede in August at the behest of the Bush Administration. It is worth for a moment considering why making this right is so important.
President Bush pressed this legislation not only to establish how our government can spy on foreign agents, but how his administration can spy on Americans. Make no mistake, the legislation we passed in August is significantly about spying on Americans – a business this administration should not be allowed to get into except under the closest supervision. We have a plain and tested device for keeping tabs on the government when it’s keeping tabs on Americans. It is our Constitution."
The challenge that lies before us is to determine whether our Constitution is still our Constitution.
Huckabee's Murky Foreign Policy Positions
Former governor Mike Huckabee talks quite a bit about his faith which, he says on his website, "defines me. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives." If that is so, then how does his faith inform his views on foreign policy? He calls for "a real sense of cooperation" between the US and other nations and adds, "I would like us to restore relationships and rebuild the kind of positive attitudes people have historically had toward our nation and do that by showing the kind of respect that other nations would want and deserve."
He doesn't say how this restoration and rebuilding would take place but cited as an example the recent visit to the US by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The president, he said, "showed a friendly face to us."
But this is reaction rather than a proactive expression of corrective policy (and, in any case, the burden here is on the foreign leader to demonstrate a change in attitude). If Huckabee feels the current administration has bungled foreign relations, and that's the implication, then he needs to define the contours of his policy prescription.
He cites several points on his site regarding his national security concerns, including this: "We don't have a dog in the fight between Sunnis and Shiites - our enemy is Islamic extremism in all its guises." If so, it is important to ask why he wasn't aware of the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) regarding Iran (surely a prime state expression of "Islamic extremism").
At the time of the report's release, Huckabee revealed this lack of awareness but, upon being informed of it, said "I don't know where the intelligence is coming from that says that they suspended the program and how credible that is versus the news that they actually are expanding it," he said. "And then I've heard the last two weeks supposed reports that say that they are accelerating and could be having a reactor in a much shorter period of time than originally they thought." (He offered no evidence on those reports that Iran is expanding its weapons program).
It's clear why Huckabee resonates with some in the Republican Party, but he needs to speak with something approximating depth and insight about his foreign policy positions. Saying "I will fight this war hard, but I will also fight it smart, using all our political, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence weapons as well as our military might," just isn't sufficient.
He doesn't say how this restoration and rebuilding would take place but cited as an example the recent visit to the US by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The president, he said, "showed a friendly face to us."
But this is reaction rather than a proactive expression of corrective policy (and, in any case, the burden here is on the foreign leader to demonstrate a change in attitude). If Huckabee feels the current administration has bungled foreign relations, and that's the implication, then he needs to define the contours of his policy prescription.
He cites several points on his site regarding his national security concerns, including this: "We don't have a dog in the fight between Sunnis and Shiites - our enemy is Islamic extremism in all its guises." If so, it is important to ask why he wasn't aware of the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) regarding Iran (surely a prime state expression of "Islamic extremism").
At the time of the report's release, Huckabee revealed this lack of awareness but, upon being informed of it, said "I don't know where the intelligence is coming from that says that they suspended the program and how credible that is versus the news that they actually are expanding it," he said. "And then I've heard the last two weeks supposed reports that say that they are accelerating and could be having a reactor in a much shorter period of time than originally they thought." (He offered no evidence on those reports that Iran is expanding its weapons program).
It's clear why Huckabee resonates with some in the Republican Party, but he needs to speak with something approximating depth and insight about his foreign policy positions. Saying "I will fight this war hard, but I will also fight it smart, using all our political, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence weapons as well as our military might," just isn't sufficient.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
A Veritable Book of Revelation(s)
The revelations just keep coming and coming.
The Washington Post today reports that the congressional acquiescence to administration policy dates to at least 2002. In this particular instance, the issue involved the CIA's interrogation program. The bipartisan group of four members (one of whom is current Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi), according to the paper, did not object to what they learned in the briefing. Two (whom the Post doesn't name) of the four "asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said. 'The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,' said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange."
Far from objecting to the questionable legality and ethics of what they witnessed, we have--again--an early indication of congressional complicity with administration policies:
"Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. 'Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,' said [Porter] Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. 'And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.'
One of the defenses members of Congress offers on matters like this is that they're sworn to rules of secrecy that prohibit "them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs."
And this is surely one of the issues that constrains effective oversight. Who determines--and why and when--the contours of these secrecy obligations? What if, as with the issues regarding waterboarding and FISA violations, members of Congress witness or secretly learn of such violations? Are they then prohibited from exercising their oversight responsibilities? Whom, exactly, do they serve? The executive branch or the Constitution?
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, spoke on the Senate floor on Friday about FISA violations, illegal wiretapping of Americans, and "the so-called Protect America Act, a second-rate piece of legislation passed in a stampede in August at the behest of the Bush Administration." The critical thrust of the speech, however, was that the Bush Administration's belief in its prerogative to decide what powers it possesses and what laws it might or might not obey (thus, ironically or otherwise, encroaching on the powers and obligations of the legislative and judicial branches).
There is much legal debate about the powers of the presidency and what might constitute presidential overreach. The questions, however, go beyond the parameters of executive authority. Are those powers so vast that the other branches of government must concede them and thus abdicate their own responsibilities? What we're witnessing by Congress is a history of malfeasance, of frank disregard for the obligations and duties required of that branch of government by the Constitution.
The Washington Post today reports that the congressional acquiescence to administration policy dates to at least 2002. In this particular instance, the issue involved the CIA's interrogation program. The bipartisan group of four members (one of whom is current Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi), according to the paper, did not object to what they learned in the briefing. Two (whom the Post doesn't name) of the four "asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said. 'The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,' said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange."
Far from objecting to the questionable legality and ethics of what they witnessed, we have--again--an early indication of congressional complicity with administration policies:
"Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. 'Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,' said [Porter] Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. 'And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.'
One of the defenses members of Congress offers on matters like this is that they're sworn to rules of secrecy that prohibit "them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs."
And this is surely one of the issues that constrains effective oversight. Who determines--and why and when--the contours of these secrecy obligations? What if, as with the issues regarding waterboarding and FISA violations, members of Congress witness or secretly learn of such violations? Are they then prohibited from exercising their oversight responsibilities? Whom, exactly, do they serve? The executive branch or the Constitution?
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, spoke on the Senate floor on Friday about FISA violations, illegal wiretapping of Americans, and "the so-called Protect America Act, a second-rate piece of legislation passed in a stampede in August at the behest of the Bush Administration." The critical thrust of the speech, however, was that the Bush Administration's belief in its prerogative to decide what powers it possesses and what laws it might or might not obey (thus, ironically or otherwise, encroaching on the powers and obligations of the legislative and judicial branches).
There is much legal debate about the powers of the presidency and what might constitute presidential overreach. The questions, however, go beyond the parameters of executive authority. Are those powers so vast that the other branches of government must concede them and thus abdicate their own responsibilities? What we're witnessing by Congress is a history of malfeasance, of frank disregard for the obligations and duties required of that branch of government by the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)