Constitutional Peril

I do hope that America pays close attention to a book written by Bruce Fein, the Harvard-educated constitutional lawyer who had the gumption, to up and quit and critisize the Bush administration for its crimes against the America and the Founding Document:  Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for our Constitution and Democracy.  Here’s part of a review at firedoglake:

While most of his fellow conservatives were defending anything and everything George Bush did, and most establishment Democrats were running away from these issues as fast as their scared little legs could carry them, Fein became one of the most eloquent and uncompromising defenders of our country’s constitutional values in the face of a coordinated onslaught led by Dick Cheney’s office and the Bush DOJ. Fein, to my knowledge, was the first prominent political figure to declare — in a December 27, 2005 Washington Times column that has aged exceptionally well — that Bush’s FISA lawbreaking was not only a threat to our republican principles, but was an impeachable offense, and he further argued that Congress had not the option, but the Constitutional duty, to impeach the President if the lawbreaking did not cease immediately:

Volumes of war powers nonsense have been assembled to defend Mr. Bush’s defiance of the legislative branch and claim of wartime omnipotence so long as terrorism persists, i.e., in perpetuity. Congress should undertake a national inquest into his conduct and claims to determine whether impeachable usurpations are at hand. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 65, impeachment lies for “abuse or violation of some public trust,” misbehaviors that “relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. . . .

Congress should insist the president cease the spying unless or until a proper statute is enacted or face possible impeachment. The Constitution’s separation of powers is too important to be discarded in the name of expediency.

As further revelations of anti-democratic policies emerged — involving torture, rendition, due-process-less detentions and a whole slew of frivolous legal theories to shield the President’s behavior behind a wall of secrecy — Fein has remained one of the nation’s most relentless and tenacious critics of the Bush administration’s assault on our Constitution, as well as the inexcusable Congressional abdication in the face of this assault. He worked with Sen. Russ Feingold on the Wisconsin Senator’s resolution to censure Bush for violating FISA, and most of all, he has repeatedly urged that Congress fulfill its constitutional obligation by pursuing impeachment proceedings against this incomparably lawless President.

Fein has now made perhaps his most important contribution yet to the cause of defending the Constitution and the rule of law: his newly released book, Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy. As the title suggests, Fein argues and richly documents that, primarily as the result of the last eight years, America’s constitutional form of government is in imminent danger of extinction. Employing both his substantial constitutional expertise and his penchant for describing complex legal issues in clear and easy-to-understand terms, Fein details how the crux of our Constitutional guarantees have been gutted –not only by a lawless and power-grabbing administration, but also by a Congress that has allowed it to happen and, at least as much, by an American citizenry that has been tragically indifferent to safeguarding the liberties which the Founders guaranteed.

While other books have critiqued the Bush administration’s theories of executive power and chronicled its chronic lawbreaking, Fein very persuasively makes the case that, at this point, the blame is far more collective than suggested by those who simply heap blame on the White House. While the crimes of the Bush administration were originally conceived of and implemented in secret by a small group of executive branch officials, that is no longer the case. One by one, the criminal acts of the Bush administration has been revealed. Yet Congress has done virtually nothing in response, except to endorse the lawbreaking and immunize the criminals — as it did when it authorized the President’s detention and interrogation schemes with the 2006 bipartisan passage of the Military Commissions Act, as well as the 2008 enactment by the Democratic Congress of the FISA Amendments Act. And through it all, American citizens have expressed little outrage at the systematic evisceration of our core liberties.

The central project of Fein’s book is to examine the likelihood that these trends can be reversed. What, he asks, are the prospects for restoration of the Constitutional system that has served us so well for the last two centuries? The answer is one that most readers will be unhappy to hear, though there is little doubt that his answer is realistic. With a citizenry that has proven itself largely indifferent to these matters, a presidential election that has ignored them almost completely, and the general tendency of political officials — no matter how well-intentioned — to expand rather than contract their own power, Fein argues that, absent some unforeseeable and extraordinary changes, this erosion of our Constitution is likely to continue rather than abate, no matter who is in power.

Though pessimistic, Fein is not without hope — as evidenced by, at the very least, the fact that he has written this book, and has generally continued his forceful advocacy in defense of the rule of law. Within Fein’s grim assessment of where we are and are likely to go lies the template for persuading our fellow citizens of the urgency of these matters. As Fein recognizes, political institutions will respond to public will. It is that public will which must be galvanized, and Fein’s book is a vitally important tool in that cause.

Canadians and others would do well to read it too, since no constitution is immune from Bush-type revisions and regressive interpretations.  We are living through a huge threat to democracy every place it tries to grow.

Equal Pay USA

From the New Yorker:

She was an ordinary middle-class mom who, despite fierce criticism, succeeded in a male-dominated profession. She challenged the local establishment and became a national figure, earning herself a spot as a featured speaker at her party’s recent Convention. But she wasn’t the governor of Alaska. She was a woman named Lilly Ledbetter, a former middle manager at a Goodyear plant in Alabama, who appeared at the Democratic Convention to give a human face to the slogan “Equal pay for equal work.”

Ledbetter’s unlikely journey to center stage began in the late nineteen-nineties, when she received an anonymous note revealing the salaries of her fellow-managers, all of whom were men. Although Ledbetter did the same job as her colleagues, and had more seniority than some of them, they were all being paid considerably more than she was. Ledbetter sued, under the Civil Rights Act, and proved that her lower pay was the result of discrimination early in her career, the effects of which had never been remedied. But victory was short-lived; the verdict was overturned on appeal, and then the Supreme Court ruled against her. The Court did not deny that Ledbetter had been discriminated against. However, according to the Civil Rights Act, Ledbetter’s lawsuit had to be filed within a hundred and eighty days, and the Court ruled that the clock started ticking with the first act of discrimination, almost two decades before Ledbetter found out what was going on.

Ledbetter was out of luck. But the Court did leave open a possibility for others like her: if Congress wanted a more realistic time frame for lawsuits, all it had to do was change the law. And so, acting with surprising dispatch, that’s precisely what Congress tried to do. Last year, the House passed a bill, named after Ledbetter, that essentially did away with the statute of limitations on pay discrimination, and the Senate was set to do the same until Republicans filibustered it to death.

Read the rest here

More Yoo

I’ve posted here and here about the atrocious non-testimony of David Addington and John Yoo before the House Judiciary Committee.  Check out this great post by Thomas Nephew at newsrackblog.  Here are a few bits:

First, torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading abuse of children by United States military, intelligence personnel, and/or U.S.-hired contractor thugs is not a hypothetical situation.

[…]

Second, the way in which Addington and Yoo answered — that is, failed to answer — Congressional questioning should itself set off emergency sirens for our democracy. These two are, in a very real sense, enemies of our state. They are our enemies.

[…]

Meanwhile, at least the future narrative is clear. We were attacked. We panicked. Our elected leaders in the White House threw away our country’s honor and our alleged principles, and set about subverting our own political system in order to do so and to get away with it. Meanwhile, our elected representatives in Congress did next to nothing to prevent it.

[…]

A recent study (by WorldPublicOpinion.org) suggests that the United States is more akin to brutalized societies like Egypt, Azerbaijan, or Russia than those like Europe’s when it comes to accepting torture under some or even any circumstances.

Check it out.

Controlling News Media

Matthew Brett points out that Canadian news media stories about Afghanistan are framed almost exclusively within the terms of reference of “controllers”, institutional primary definers identified, in this case, as NATO and the US.  Here, he shows how an opinion column by Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail manifests characteristics of institutional control:

The Afghan National Army (ANA) and the Afghan National Police (ANP) were, until today, reported as gaining in strength and numbers. Anyone following the war for any period of time would know this was nothing but propaganda from U.S, NATO and Canada. Remaining illusions can now be dispelled as the General Accountability Office of the U.S. Congress reports that, “despite a U.S. investment of more than $10-billion since 2002, only two of 105 ANA units are capable of operating effectively.” This quote from the Globe and Mail’s Jeffrey Simpson is a welcome report of the dire circumstances of Afghanistan, almost entirely void of propaganda. However, Simpson’s article cannot entirely escape from “the controllers.”

Pakistan produce young men (and women) “ready to blow themselves up,” writes Simpson, and “as long as the Pakistani government is powerless or unwilling to combat these institutions, a constant stream of recruits will cross the border into Kandahar.” True this may be, but he entirely neglects the reality that more civilians were killed by NATO-led air strikes with 2,000 lb bombs than young men and women “ready to blow themselves up.”

Simpson is not yet released by “the controllers.” He writes that there is no record of suicide bombing when the Soviets occupied Afghanistan. Simpson is well within the controller’s reach in explaining this exponential rise in these attacks. “Suicide attacks have arrived courtesy of imported but now ingrained al-Qaeda ideology, the example of Iraq and the teachings of various religious communities.” Suicide attacks have indeed arrived courtesy of an imported and ingrained ideology, but it’s not of al-Qaeda, it’s of the U.S.

The lack of substantive debate of any kind in Canada about our involvement in Afghanistan is stupefying.

Will Bush Lies Catch Up with Him?

Vincent Bugliosi builds a case against George W. Bush:

There is direct evidence that President George W. Bush did not honorably lead this nation, but deliberately misled it into a war he wanted. Bush and his administration knowingly lied to Congress and to the American public – lies that have cost the lives of more than 4,000 young American soldiers and close to $1 trillion.

A Monumental Lie

In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him -a monumental lie to the nation and the world.

On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the U.S. This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.

According to the October 1, 2002 NIE, “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological warfare] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war.” The report concluded that Hussein was not planning to use any weapons of mass destruction; further, Hussein would only use weapons of mass destruction he was believed to have if he were first attacked, that is, he would only use them in self-defense.

Preparing its declassified version of the NIE for Congress, which became known as the White Paper, the Bush administration edited the classified NIE document in ways that significantly changed its inference and meaning, making the threat seem imminent and ominous.

In the original NIE report, members of the U.S. intelligence community vigorously disagreed with the CIA’s bloated and inaccurate conclusions. All such opposing commentary was eliminated from the declassified White Paper prepared for Congress and the American people.

Bugliosi’s article continues at commondreams.org

 

Lawyers as Criminals

Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyer’s Guild, testifies before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties of the House Judiciary Committee:

What does torture have in common with genocide, slavery, and wars of aggression? They are all jus cogens. That’s Latin for “higher law” or “compelling law.” This means that no country can ever pass a law that allows torture. There can be no immunity from criminal liability for violation of a jus cogens prohibition.

The United States has always prohibited torture in our Constitution, laws, executive statements, judicial decisions, and treaties. When the U.S. ratifies a treaty, it becomes part of American law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, says, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture.”

Whether someone is a POW or not, he must always be treated humanely; there are no gaps in the Geneva Conventions.

The US War Crimes Act, and 18 USC sections 818 and 3231, punish torture, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and inhuman, humiliating or degrading treatment.

The Torture Statute criminalizes the commission, attempt, or conspiracy to commit torture outside the United States.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws and the President the duty to enforce them. Yet Bush, relying on memos by lawyers including John Yoo, announced the Geneva Conventions did not apply to alleged Taliban and Al Qaeda members. But torture and inhumane treatment are never allowed under our laws.

Justice Department lawyers wrote memos at the request of Bush officials to insulate them from prosecution for torture. In memos dated August 1, 2002 and March 18, 2003, John Yoo wrote the DOJ would not enforce U.S. laws against torture, assault, maiming and stalking, in the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants.

Video of testimony and NLG White Paper on torture   here

May 1970/May 2008

This photograph was taken by student photographer Howard Ruffner on May 4, 1970.  Ohio National Guardsman have, at this point, forced student campus demonstrators to disperse by advancing on them, firing tear gas.  This picture shows the dispersing students followed by the Guard.  Just about in the centre of the picture, at the top of the hill beneath the umbrella structure, is Alison Kraus, her back to the Guard and holding her boyfriend’s hand.  Moments later, Krause was shot and killed by the Guard.

On May 4, 1970, Caroline Arnold was living in the town of Kent, Ohio.  On that day, 4 student demonstrators were shot and killed by the Ohio National Guard.  Nine students were injured – one of them permanently paralyzed.  On the 38th anniversary of the shooting, Arnold wrote in memory of the tragedy:

In the spring of 1970 an estimated 4 million students nationwide participated in protests against the war and some 30 ROTC buildings were burned. Students everywhere were asking questions like: Why are we having this war in Vietnam? Why invade Cambodia? Who gets to decide about wars? Why are we being taught war and killing in ROTC? Why are our protests met with police brutality? Why are so few blacks able to go to college? Why are we conscripted to fight a war we don’t believe in when we can’t vote and have no voice in public decisions about our lives?

Nixon, Rhodes and Satrom didn’t want to talk about those questions, didn’t even want them talked about. Many citizens didn’t, either. Instead of giving the students a place at the table, listening to them, and working with them, we used force to control them, reviled them, criminalized them, arrested them, tear-gassed them, bayoneted them, shot them.

Thirty-eight years later we still haven’t answered their questions. We haven’t confronted the use of war and violence for political or economic ends. We haven’t faced the residual racism and resentment of the poor in our communities; our Constitution has been freshly dismembered; our Congress cannot shake off its addiction to corporate finance or reclaim its war-making power.

more here