"Thank You Very Much, But I'll Take My Constitution With Me!"
The full-scale partisan assault on President Clinton that began almost before his Inauguration was puzzling in that it always seemed to be a pre-ordained Impeachment looking for an impeachable offense. Whitewater? Yeah, let's try that. That didn't work? Ok, how about Troopergate? Nothing there? Well, let's throw accusations about drug-dealing at
Like a pack of dogs in pursuit of elusive prey did these well-organized partisans keep at it, finally settling upon extraordinary persecution of a tawdry - but hardly impeachable - extra-marital sexual affair and its related lies as their last, best hope to declare that the Republic was sufficiently threatened by this democratically elected President to warrant his removal from Office. (I know! When you look back on it from the perspective of having experienced the Bush years, it seems pretty crazy, no?)
Upon the Supreme Court's appointment of Bush to the White House in 2000, Rove/Cheney & Co..certainly assumed power with considerably more swagger than either their "mandate" or the Constitution would've deemed appropriate. Without batting an eye, they immediately and continually stretched the limits of the Executive Office to extremes no legitimate Constitutionalist could ever have imagined, all with no apparent concern that there was any opposing force to truly limit their transgressions.
Unfortunately, they were right in acting as though theirs was the only game in town. These cynical pols seemingly understood that the public would be greatly disinclined to allow Congress to exercise its Impeachment Powers against two successive Presidents. To follow one Impeachment with another would understandably be construed as partisan warfare and would therefore be politically unpopular as a perceived misuse of the extraordinary Powers of Impeachment. These Powers, after all, were never intended to be exercised as a common feature of our governance.
Thus, having successfully pursued the Impeachment of Clinton and having inflicted great trauma to the nation during that time, it is therefore understandable that these pols would subsequently find the populace willing to grant a whole lot of latitude to crimes and misdemeanors rather than suffer such a stressful disruption of their government as they had most recently experienced in the Impeachment of Clinton..
This political response within the electorate to the trauma of the Clinton Impeachment is the only logical reason that I can find for Congress' unwillingness to exercise their most solemn duty to protect the Constitution during the years of the Bush Administration. There can be no other reason why we now find ourselves engaged in questions like "How much torture is TOO much torture?" or "How long can the President hold prisoners without granting Rights of Habeus Corpus" or for our "experts" to be struggling to find justification for our President's assertion that he has the authority to direct secret and warrantless wiretaps against anyone he deems appropriate.
In the past, each one of these transgressions and others such as we've seen perpetrated by these criminals would have raised considerable alarm and absolute opposition, including calls for Impeachment if the criminals persisted in their pursuit of such assaults on our Constitution.
But it is perhaps the greatest irony of the Clinton Impeachment that those who so wantonly attacked the Presidency during the course of that abominable exercise ultimately managed to destroy Congress' political authority - for the short term - to exercise their Constitutional powers of Impeachment.
My fear is that failure now to do whatever it takes to hold the Bush Administration accountable for their many crimes and misdemeanors will in fact not only take from us the specific rights in question that have been violated, but that inaction now will also perhaps fatally compromise Congress' Powers of Impeachment altogether.
Yet, we continue to hear the talking heads warning that there are political reasons why we should simply turn our head and let bygones be bygones. For myself, I would instead insist that we make certain we carry with us the Constitution before we pretend to move forward into any kind of change we can believe in.
Good points SIJ. The current congress and senate seem to have little appetite for investigation of these matters perhaps due to their complicity in the extra-constitutional actions of the current administration. The complicity of these senators and congressmen is what I think diminishes the probability of a vigorous investigation. It is remarkable that Clinton faced impeachment for perjury in regards to his extramarital intrigues, while the Bush/Cheney regime seems poised to walk away uninvestigated and unscathed by their circumvention of constitutional law. I hope that is not the case. We as a nation deserve to at the very least have these actions by a standing president investigated and the results published if for no other reason than to diminish the chance of future recurrence. We need to write our elected officials and make our desires in this matter known. I'm not convinced it will make any difference, but if enough people make their wishes known, it may at least expose the hypocrisy of the legislature.
November 28, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
As Oliver Hardy would say to Stanley . . .
"Well here's another fine mess you've gotten us into..."
And in singing to the choir here ... it's been one fine mess after another with this Bush Crime Syndicate.
After watching and howling at the moon for the first 5 years of these scumbags and then paddling around the pond leaving only comments in the Cafe here for about a month, for Independence Day (hah!) 2005 I finally decided to paddle out from hiding in the tall reeds and post my true feelings in my first blog entry. See:
But most people were too busy drinking beers and watching their parades and fireworks and consuming large amounts of barbecue ribs and potato salad to have caught my post in the queue that day.
Funny that my feelings haven't changed one iota.
To my dying day I will continue to point to these past years under Bush as the darkest, lowest, scummiest days in the history of our country.
Just musing here...
Thanks for your fine writing . . .
I'm just a simple wooden duck.
~OGD~
November 28, 2008 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
And thank you, OGD, for the kind words.
We weren't all just "...too busy drinking beers and watching their parades" etc. I remember the reaction from those who were paying attention when GWB first named Ashcroft to be his Attorney General. How extreme this choice appeared to be, mostly because of Ashcroft's difficulty in sorting out God's Law from the Law he was sworn to protect?
My God, how quaint that all seems to be now in light of all the Bush extremism that followed, eh?
November 28, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the one hand we have really decended into a dark ages, the last 8 years.
On the other hand, America never did own up to horror of the "Free Fire Zones" of Vietnam and the complete lawlessness of the Nixon administration.
So in many ways our descent into the darkness is the direct result for our having done nothing to punish the guilty of the Vietnam and Nixon years.
November 28, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolute agreement, Tigger. Vietnam and Nixon, throw in some nice vice from Ronnie & friends, a touch of JFK and you're good to go. In fact, no good reason not to replace "In God We Trust" as our Mammon Motto, with "Let It Gooooo, Man. Get Over It."
Or as the great Bill Hicks put it, Go Back To Bed, America.
"Here's American Gladiators. Watch this. Shut Up. Go Back To Bed, America. You Are Free."
November 28, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, you make a very good point, Spot.
Whereas these are related as you point out, what is perhaps most worrisome is that there is a progression that's evident here. Even at the time of the VietNam War and Watergate - when these other transgressions occurred that you enumerate - we would not easily have sanctiond these latest assaults against our Constitution.
Nixon tread in this direction and at least suffered widespread scrutiny and approbation if not our criminal prosecution. (Thanks, again, Mr. Ford?) Whereas his transgressions were not ultimately tried in court or before Congress, there is nevertheless consensus that he operated way beyond the bounds of our Constitution.
Bush & Co. have pushed even further than Nixon, and yet we find ourselves actually debating whether he's gone sufficiently off the rails to say whether it even warrants our attention.
It can be argued that these threats to Liberty have been with us always, going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts through the imprisonment of Japanese/Americans during WWII and our whole history on Civil Rights for minorities.
But the tool to remedy these tyrranical pursuits of our democratic government has always rested in the people themselves. For example, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) the Supreme Court stated that "Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history." Although the Sedition Act was indeed never tested in the Courts, it has nevertheless been rendered unconstitutional by We the People ourselves.
At the very least, we now require a "People's Court" - to include substantive Congressional hearings - to lift the veil of secrecy and wholly explore the many activities and Constituional assaults of the Bush Administration. Only then can we be satisfied that the "court of history" has been offered the evidence required to render its verdict and thus protect our Liberty for future generations.
Failing to convene such an exercise only pushes the ball a little further down the road in progression toward who knows what kind of tyrannical activity that might be visited upon us in the future.
November 28, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Went back to read your July the 4th. Rec'd.
Thought-provoking.
I dictate this while walking round the room, fingers raised - actually, sticking out of these sleeves they have me in - in what is locally known as the Bush Salute.
Don't ask how we salute Cheney. It ain't pretty.
November 28, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd, as well.
May I suggest the posture, if not in fact the character in the picture himself, be appointed Sec'y of the Treasury?
"Take THAT, all ye hedge fund traders and Wall Street parasites!"
A press conference worth tivo'ing.
November 28, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd. Very nicely written.
Though I have to say, I think part of the reason Congress didn't act wasn't necessarily just about "we just exercised our powers of impeachment and we can't do it again... for now" (though I think that was certainly part of it).
I also believe it had to do with a genuine belief that, if the Democrats did try to exercise such power, they would be driven from power. The Republican party had never been as partisan as they were for Bush. There was no opposition to Bush. If the Democrats had tried to impeach Bush, they never would have succeeded. And the Republicans would have played it off as partisan politics and a distraction from "real" issues. Whether they would have been right is besides the point.
I simply think the Democrats were scared for their political lives. Try to impeach Bush, fail, get thrown out of office in the next election. Is this the way things WOULD have happened? Maybe. Maybe not. I just don't think the Democratic leadership, to put it bluntly, had the balls to do what's right.
November 28, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm wondering if Obama's staying mum about prosecutions of the Bush administration because, at this point, that news would take over the MSM when Obama would like to keep our eyes on him and on the economy. Perhaps, he will allow something to go forward after Jan. 20 or later on.
November 28, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should non-American enemy soldiers that have been captured trying to kill Americans be given the right to habeas corpus?
Should these rights have been given to the prisoners of war detained on US soil during World War II?
November 28, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
They should have have gotten those rights in WWII. There's a reason there are specific points concerning POWs and the rights they receive in the Geneva Conventions.
November 28, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two words: Maher Arar
Canadian Citizen Mr. Arar was kidnapped by US Authorities and held in solitary confinement for two weeks. He was then sent in an "extraordinary rendition" to Syria where he was imprisoned and tortured for a year until finally being released to Canada.
No charges were ever made against Arar by the US or anyone else. There were quite simply no substantiated assertions or accusations that he was captured on the battlefield (JFK Airport, fer chrissakes?) nor that he ever posed a threat to anyone.
Believing (as is your premise) that anyone held by the US simply MUST therefore be a terrorist (or "enemy combatant") by definition is to celebrate blindness while forsaking justice - as well as avoiding our responsibility to respect Human Rights.
November 28, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prisoners held in WW II had protections from the Geneva Accords. It was rare that a German soldier in uniform was taken in error. Japanese had less care taken for their safety, I imagine, being brown.
The detainees held in Guantanamo were mostly NOT taken in battle by US forces, but turned in for a reward, or swept up in confusion. They were not in uniform, the soldiers could not speak any Pashtun or Urdu, and knew pretty much squat about who they were holding. They were given neither Geneva protection or US legal protections.
As always, the mistake is to assume the detainees were known to have been shooting at us illegally. Neither was known to be true. And facts have proven to be unfriendly to the assumption.
November 28, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The world isn't black and white and mistakes like Arar are going to be made. But to give all terrorists the right of habeas corpus seems like a mistake to me. We should only respect Human Rights for people who's goal in life isn't to kill innocent civilians
November 28, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last attempt at logic & reason...
We should only respect Human Rights for people who's goal in life isn't to kill innocent civilians
Reportedly, Mr Arar's goal at the time of his "capture" was merely to switch planes at JFK so he could get home to his family in Canada.
"...mistakes like Arar are going to be made."
The last I looked, Human Rights were not intended to be apportioned and applied in x% of cases. (troublesome concept of inalienable rights, and all, you know?)
Frankly, it is insulting to be expected to accept "mstakes being made" that can rob a person of their physical freedom for no reason other than than they get mistakenly caught up in hysteric efforts at "Homeland Security." In the case of the US, what is there left to defend if we so willingly surrender our Constitution?
November 28, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, SJ, the point is that ALLEGED terrorists and all others SUSPECTED or ACCUSED of crimes deserve the same rights. The right to know the charges and the evidence against them. Abu Graib and Guantanamo were filled with people turned in by their personal enemies, who received cash rewards for accusing the often innocent.
MCBill, better you should review the golden rule. If I or one I love is accused of anything, I damn sure want the evidence laid bare and the accuser identified. I would and will offer the same to anyone in the world accused of a crime.
November 28, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hey . . .
I think I should have free reign to take other people's money out of the bank whenever I please.
A person can disagree with the SC's interpretation till their skull implodes. But if they don't wish to live under the decisions and laws interpreted by the highest court and the Constitution of the United States then they can always go bang their head against a brick wall. They’ll discover that when they stop banging it, they'll feel better.
So … After reading those who have patiently yet vainly attempted to use both logic and reason, I pass and elect to send this opinion on an all expenses paid trip to The "TPM Two-Holer" at the Café.
Bon voyage . . .
~OGD~
November 28, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should only respect Human Rights for people who's goal in life isn't to kill innocent civilians.
Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist with habeas corpus rights. He killed 168 "innocent civilians" and no one questioned his right to habeas corpus. What is the difference, in your opinion, between foreign born terrorists that kill innocent civilians and the native born?
November 28, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can even carry our Constitutions on our electronic devices. The Apple app store has a free download.
November 28, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Constitution says that habeas corpus can be suspended during invasion or rebellion. I disagree with the SC's interpretation that we aren't living under the suspension clause today.
November 28, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
By Congress acting, as in the Civil War.
We are not in a state of insurrection, or invasion. We had a criminal act by non-state actors that posed no military risk or political threat.
Why should we give any protection to any criminals? Because we don't know they are criminals? Get it?
If we want to call them enemies we give them Geneva protections. I'm OK with that. It also means we repatriate them after cessation of hostilities. We are no longer at war with Afghanistan. Let's release them all. OK by you?
Or they are charged with criminal acts. That needs proving. Make your choice.
November 28, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever I get stuck, like I have been over the last eight years, I would remember Alexander Pope's Statement of Fact:
WHAT IS, IS.
AND WHAT IS NOT, IS NOT
The last two years, of course, gave me hope but third grade arithmetic sent me back to Pope. We had 49 Democrats in the Senate along with our good friend from Vermont. Fillabusters ruled the Senate. Pelosi knew this. At least the Dems could hold real committee hearings in both houses.
Sure, Pelosi could have gotten an impeachment but to what end?
The least the Americans deserve from the Congress they elected over the last two years and the New Administration, is the real effort to expose the facts, the events and the principals involved over the last 8 years.
I want to know who attended Cheney's clandestine energy conference. I want to know what the internal memos from our spy network really said about Sadaam and Iraq. I want to know what Halliburton was really paid and how much money they owe us.
These are three questions out of hundreds of questions I want the answers to.
I want to know who, either individual or corporate entity, made over $100,000,000 from the tax coffers over the last eight years and I want an audit as to why that money was paid.
We'll see.
November 28, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink