There are no headlines or pontificating pundits, but the real news that has become crystal clear to any but the most delusional and distracted Americans is that President Obama has no commitment to applying the rule of law where it counts. Certainly, not applying it to the large number of rich and powerful people that have violated our Constitution and plunged the nation into economic disaster.
Again and again we hear the flimsy argument from Obama and his top advisors that he wants to look forward and not backward. This is tortured logic when it comes to delivering justice in a nation supposedly cherishing the rule of law.
The fundamental logic of honoring and applying the rule of law fairly to absolutely everyone is that people who have broken the law in the past must be held accountable and placed into the justice system after they have misbehaved. In other words, there is no actionable rule of law other than by looking backward into past misdeeds. So how can rational and intelligent people follow the logic of Obama and still believe that he truly understands and honors the rule of law?
It is not believable when Obama says he will honor the rule of law in the future. Why should we trust his rhetoric when he refuses to enforce the rule of law for past actions by some of the most powerful people in America?
There is warranted and massive public disapproval of government as evidenced in the tea parties held across the nation last week. How can Americans respect government when it is so evident that the president stubbornly refuses to seek justice and punishment for those that have violated the public trust? Obama’s reluctance to seek justice for those that have damaged the nation undermines his credibility as an honest public servant.
All of this has taken on new importance as official documents from the Bush administration totally support the view that the US tortured prisoners in violation of international and domestic laws. President George W. Bush lied to us. And even before the latest events there were surely incredible amounts of evidence that high Bush administration officials savaged our Constitution. The constitutional balance of powers among the three branches of government has become a fiction.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Al Barger
Joel sez: "official documents from the Bush administration totally support the view that the US tortured prisoners in violation of international and domestic laws"
Well NO, the documents indicate exactly the opposite - that the Bush administration was trying hard to be scrupulous about legality. Now, these documents already prove Bush nefarious, simply because they've been labeled in the media as "torture memos." If they're writing "torture memos" then they're torturing people.
But in fact, they were careful legal opinions advising the CIA on just exactly what they could and couldn't do. If it were just going to be "take 'em in the back and do whatever you gotta do," then they're be no need for these legal opinions.
Plus, these documents suggest to me that even W's people were a little on the pussy side. For example, they could put a harmless caterpillar in with a terrorist they knew to be scared of bugs - but they couldn't even pretend to tell him that it might bite him.
You might disagree with their legal notions of exactly where the boundaries might fall, but you can't reasonably say that they were just disregarding the law and doing whatever - not based on these OLC documents.
2 - roger nowosielski
Despite your eloquent argument, Mr. Barger, let's face up to reality: what's legal, what's treason, and what's torture, it's the president's lawyers who make it so.
3 - Al Barger
Oh now, Roger. The president's lawyers are just lawyers. They're not the SCOTUS. And really, what exactly are the CIA supposed to do? They come to the White House seeking confidential (thanks for blowing that one, O) advise on exactly what the boundaries are. Or should they not ask for legal advice, and just not seriously interrogate anyone - just presumptively rejecting any technique that they guess might make the wimpiest member of the public disapprove?
4 - Al Barger
Brother Hirschhorn could use a little time in church praying to Jesus to lift the oppressive spirit of hate and vengeance that causes him to write stuff like "They want and deserve revenge and retribution, considering the astounding pain and suffering the vast majority of Americans now experience."
For one thing, this is exactly the opposite of that "rule of law" that his title supposedly calls for. There's not really any list of particular crimes, or any specific people. It's just that people are mad and hurting, so it's time to nail some SOBs to some crosses.
5 - Cindy
you can't reasonably say that they were just disregarding the law and doing whatever
No you can't, you'd have to conclude they were very fastidiously trying to protect their own asses--legally.
6 - Cindy
Joel,
I'm not interested in rebuilding confidence in government and the justice system or in revenge. Still, this article said a lot of important things very well. I thought it was excellent.
7 - Dan(Miller)
Mr. Hirschhorn says that he would like to see President Bush and a whole lot of others "tried and punished on the world stage." He thereby misapprehends the rule of law and the proper functions of the executive and judicial branches of Government which are charged with enforcing it. Such trials would, indeed, be low tragedy or comedy fit for a stage, and would more than likely bring great pleasure to an unfortunately large number of zealots. It would not, however, advance the rule of law one iota; to the contrary, it would make a mockery of it. The rule of law is not, and should not be reduced to, a theatrical spectacle of the sort which he urges.
Despite the loud reference to "international and domestic laws," the article offers no citation to any law, international or domestic, violated by President Bush or the others from the former administration whom the author would have "tried and punished on the world stage." That lots of people are now unhappy with President Bush, et al does not lead inexorably or even remotely to the conclusion that their disenchantment warrants a show trial of the sort envisioned.
To claim that the recent "tea bag" protests were in some curious way prompted by public hunger for a show trial of officials of the former administration is a specious although possibly unique stretch of the imagination. It may deserve an A+ for cleverness, but deserves an F- for accuracy. It corresponds to the notion that the validity of the author's thesis is "clear to any but the most delusional and distracted Americans." Were this latter assessment valid, the country would be in far worse shape than I think is the case.
Dan(Miller)
8 - Cindy
Hi Dan S.(Miller,
Here you go. A few of them, not comprehensive, I'm afraid.
That lots of people are now unhappy with President Bush, et al does not lead inexorably or even remotely to the conclusion that their disenchantment warrants a show trial of the sort envisioned.
I agree. Bush should not be tried for people's unhappiness or disenchantment with him. It's his criminals acts that warrant it. He should be tried with the same seriousness one would try anyone who committed crimes against humanity.
* Deception of Congress and the American Public
o Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371)
o Making False Statements Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1001)
o War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148)
o Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. § 1301)
* Improper Detention, Torture, and Other Inhumane Treatment
o Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340-40A)
o The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441)
o The Geneva Conventions and Hague Convention: International Laws Governing the Treatment of Detainees
o United Nations Convention Against Torture, and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment: International Laws Governing the Treatment of Detainees
o Command Responsibility (for known illegal acts of subordinates in the military)
o Detainment of Material Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 3144)
* Retaliating against Witnesses and Other Individuals
o Obstruction Congress (18 U.S.C. § 1505)
o Whistleblower Protection (5 U.S.C. § 2302)
o The Lloyd-LaFollette Act, or "anti-gag rule" (5 U.S.C. § 7211)
o Retaliating against Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 1513)
* Leaking and other Misuse of Intelligence and other Government Information
o Revealing Classified Information in Contravention of Federal Regulations (Executive Order 12958/Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement)
o Statutory Prohibitions on Leaking Information (18 U.S.C. § 641, etc.)
* Laws Governing Electronic Surveillance
o Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq.)
o National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. chapter 15)
o Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 222)
o Stored Communications Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. § 2702)
o Pen Registers or Trap and Trace Devices (18 U.S.C. § 3121)
* Laws and Guidelines Prohibiting Conflicts of Interest (28 U.S.C. § 528, etc.)
9 - Dan
I think the authors desire is to make some new monty pythonish legal definition of torture, and then expostfacto go after Bush.
It's a ridiculous pursuit from a legal standpoint, besides time consuming and expensive.
The Obama teams political sophistry is to give the perception of a guilty Bush and a magnanimous Obama. Which it seems this author has, in part, succumbed to.
Obama's releasing classified secrets against the near unanimous advice of national security high-ups, for mere partisan political exploitation, reveals the amateurish nature of this presidency, as well as an immaturity of character.
Dick Chaney's response to this lame high jink was to authorize the release of critical beneficial terrorist operations information obtained from waterboarding, caterpillar proximity placement, and the withholding of ice-cream. Information that would not receive an objective, professional reporting of in the NY Times.
10 - roger nowosielski
"Oh now, Roger. The president's lawyers are just lawyers."
Al, you're missing the point. They're doing his bidding. And then, everything else follows suit.
But you understand that.
11 - Dan(Miller)
Cindy,
1. If they are "insane," they have an excellent defense.
2. The list of laws you claim were violated is interesting. Perhaps you will be kind enough to explain how they -- or even a few of them -- apply in the present context.
Dan(Miller)
12 - Cindy
Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
Isn't that worrisome? (What I bolded.)
What about just saying, the law doesn't apply? What happens when a president challenges laws and says he doesn't have to obey them?
When I challenge the law...I have to go to jail or court!!
Keep letting people in power get away with this and what do you think happens?
13 - roger nowosielski
Presidents are above the law, that's the new doctrine.
14 - Cindy
Dan S.(Miller),
Here you go. There's plenty of discussion in this 350 page report:
The Constitution in Crisis (pdf)
...and this 500 page report.
Reining in the Imperial Presidency (pdf)
Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) announced the publication of the final version of the Democratic Committee staff report on systematic abuses of presidential power during the Bush administration. The report, titled "Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the Presidency of George W. Bush," contains 50 separate recommendations designed to correct the imbalanced separation of power that characterized the George W. Bush presidency. Chief among Conyers’ recommendations include continued congressional investigations like those the Judiciary Committee has pursued concerning Karl Rove’s interactions with the Justice Department, a blue ribbon commission similar to the panel proposed in Chairman Conyers’ H.R. 104, and independent criminal probes to be conducted by federal prosecutors.
...the administration still has much to do to restore the rule of law to its rightful place. A nonpartisan, independent accounting of what happened must take place, and the new administration must do more to roll back its predecessor’s policies on issues ranging from signing statements to the state secrets privilege." (link)
15 - Cindy
The Other Dan,
Ugly self-serving thinking.
16 - Dan(Miller)
Cindy, thank you for providing 850 pages of text for me to study. I shall do so at leisure and get back to you. In the meantime, perhaps you will be kind enough to cite at least one criminal statute which you deem to have been violated, and the factual basis for that belief.
Dan(Miller)
17 - Cindy
DS
I'll choose this one. I'll need a bit of time to support my argument. (After all, I am only a mere non-lawyer.)
Statute Title 18, U.S.C. § 2441, War Crimes
18 - Cindy
(M) <---there it is
19 - Cindy
Cindy, thank you for providing 850 pages of text for me to study.
lol Oh, btw, you're welcome. I know how much you lawyers love that stuff.
20 - Clavos
Al, you're missing the point. They're doing his bidding. And then, everything else follows suit.
No, Roger, you're missing it.
As Al pointed out, the President (and by extension, his counsel) is NOT the highest law in the land. That's the beauty of our Constitution: all three branches have their specific areas of authority and responsibility, and where the law is concerned, the SCOTUS trumps the President.
Put another way, "Even the President is not above the law." Although most of 'em try to be, sooner or later.
21 - roger nowosielski
It was tongue in cheek, Clavos, a line from "Elizabeth" movie.
22 - zingzing
clavos has no tongue. only fingers. but, oh, what he does with what he has...
23 - pablo
First off let me say that it has become blatantly obvious that the great libertarian Mr. Nalle has chosen to stay away from this subject, a fact that I pointed out on another article on the same subject matter. It speaks volumes about his so called libertarianism.
I must say that I absolutely love it when so called libertarians (actually right wing extremest republicans) such as Barger will stoop to anything to support their ignorant claims, including defending inhumane criminal acts such as TORTURE.
So I want to thank you Barger for that as it truly made my day. In my mind's eye I see Barger upside down with water being poured down his throat simulating drowning as he cries like a baby. After that he is forced to stand for a week.
You go boy, thank you for showing all the world publicly what you the great libertarian Barger are all about. I have known it for some time. :)
24 - pablo
I would like to add, that it is indeed nice to see Barger casting his lot with such other notable libertarians such as CFR Cheney, and former CIA director Michael Hayden CFR, who said that the fourth amendment requires no probable cause for warrant. Thanks again Al! It is always a pleasure to call a spade a spade buddy. :)
25 - zingzing
holiday, celebrate, come together, in every nation.