« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Turley's Full of It
This Kos post that suggests that members of Congress could be held liable for the acts of the executive merely by virtue of being informed of those actions is ludicrous. Members have an absolute privilege protecting them from any legal liability for wrongdoing, which is why the evidence seized from Congressman Jefferson's office was excluded from his criminal prosecution.
That the Democratic Congress (certain members, at least) may be covering their political flank would seem to be indisputable, obvious, and among the most craven, cowardly acts of the American legislature in my lifetime. It should also be noted in passing that although the DNC and Obama's campaign have eschewed lobbyist and corporate contributions, the Democratic legislature has not. Having it go around that leading D's signed off on this behavior in one way or another would be politically damaging.
However, those legislators that have said "we were hoodwinked--shame on us" have not suffered any political price from the democratic base. Admissions of error have served as badges of redemption for John Edwards (and John Cole). Unless these members pay a political price for these kinds of votes, this activity will continue. Every member is going to say "gee I didn't like the bill, but we had to fund the troops and get relief funds to those poor people in the Midwest."
Comments (2)
This is wrong:
Legislative immunity is not an absolute shield to accountability for criminal activity. Members of Congress can be prosecuted. For example, one statute -- the oath of office, 5 USC 3331 -- would, under your theory, not be enforceable because of legislative immunity; yet you've not explained why they take an oath or promise to be bound to the Supreme Law under penalty of 5 USC 3331.
As to Turley's claims -- that Members of Congress can be prosecuted for complicity with war crimes -- that's true: They share policy making power, through Article I Section 8, and are required to enforce those Acts of Congress related to Geneva, FISA, POW abuse, and other war crimes. Their oath is to the Supreme Law, which includes all treaty obligations.
The US government's branches have overlapping jurisdiction. They have a duty to enforce Geneva, which they're refused. There's something called malfeasance, which has not been adequately addressed. The discussion has not adequately supported this assertion:
Ludicrous: "amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity". Your argument better matches the definition than the information provided at Kos.
June 26, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right-those words were as poorly chosen as Turley's. What it should have said was "absolute immunity for those activities taken in furtherance of their official duties." Thus, suppose Pelosi went to the floor of the house and gave away troop movements. Those statements cannot be used as evidence. She's immune.
July 22, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment