| Page 5 of 5 < |
Do We Torture?
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
"Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, 'whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.'
"But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. . . .
"Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance 'astonishing.'
"'That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers,' Rozell said. 'What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all.'"
Neil A. Lewis and David Johnston write in the New York Times: "The assertion that the Justice Department could thwart a contempt effort underscored a larger White House strategy to stake out a tough stance in its face-off with Congress, but one that could be modified later. Most confrontations over the refusal by presidents or their aides to provide information to Congress have ended with some sort of compromise.
"A Democratic staff aide in Congress called the White House comments 'a trial balloon,' which was supported by the fact that they first came Thursday evening from an unnamed official whose remarks were reported Friday in The Washington Post. . . .
"Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said any effort by the White House to block the federal prosecutor from bringing a contempt citation on behalf of Congress would demonstrate the very problem Congress was seeking to investigate: whether federal prosecutors have been subjected to political influence."
Eggen and Goldstein wrote on Saturday that some Democrats concurred with the White House claim. For instance: "Walter E. Dellinger III, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department then, wrote in a 1995 legal opinion that 'the criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to the President or presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege.' . . .
"'Congress can determine what's unlawful but not determine who should be prosecuted,' said Dellinger, who is now a Duke University law professor. 'It's an important part of the separation of powers. . . . The real issue in this case is whether the claims of executive privilege are valid,' a matter that he said would have to be adjudicated on its merits in the courts."
But by saying that the merits of the claim should be adjudicated in the courts, isn't Dellinger arguing the position of White House critics -- that there must be some judicial recourse?
Executive Privilege Opinion Watch
The New York Times editorial board writes: "This stance tears at the fabric of the Constitution and upends the rule of law. . . .
"The Supreme Court has made clear that executive privilege is not simply what the president claims it to be. It must be evaluated case by case by a court, balancing the need for the information against the president's interest in keeping his decision-making process private. . . .
"Congress should use all of the tools at its disposal to pursue its investigations. It is not only a matter of getting to the bottom of some possibly serious government misconduct. It is about preserving the checks and balances that are a vital part of American democracy."
Scott Horton blogs for Harpers: "From a historical and constitutional perspective, the notion of executive privilege is weak and speculative. It has historically crumbled under challenge. But now, in another signature act of constitutional vandalism, the Bush Administration is preparing to state that Executive Privilege trumps everything."
Public-policy professor Mark Kleiman blogs: "By taking the courts entirely out of the picture, Bush is daring the Congress to use its powers of self-help: arrest of individuals and seizure of documents by the Sergeants-at-Arms. Of course, [Democrats] will have to pick their shots; the last thing you want is prisoner who could be made into a sympathetic victim. But that's not true of Rove or Gonzales or Cheney. . . .
"Even without a physical arrest, issuing an order to one of the Sergeants-at-Arms to arrest any of those figures would make him into a sort of fugitive. Cheney, for example, could not preside over the Senate.
"If that's too radical a step, what's Plan B? Congress could use the power of the purse to bring the Bush machine -- but not the government -- to a grinding halt.
"Defund the non-essential (and dangerous) parts of the Executive Office of the President: the press office, the political office, the White House Counsel's office. None of those has any Constitutional standing; they exist only insofar as Congress appropriates money for them."
Glenn Greenwald blogs for Salon: "There is no magic force that is going to descend from the sky and strike with lighting at George Bush and Dick Cheney for so flagrantly subverting our constitutional order. The Founders created various checks for confronting tyrannical abuses of power, but they have to be activated by political will and the courage to confront it. That has been lacking. Hence, they have seized omnipotent powers with impunity.
"At this point, the blame rests not with the Bush administration . . . the blame rests with those who have acquiesced to it."
Censure Watch
Zachary A. Goldfarb writes in The Washington Post: "Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) announced that he would introduce resolutions to censure President Bush for the conduct of the Iraq war and some of his administration's counterterrorism initiatives.
"Feingold, one of the Senate's most liberal members, said on NBC's ' Meet the Press' that the censure measures, which carry no legal weight, would be one way to do 'something serious in terms of accountability.'"
Over on CBS's Face the Nation, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid said he was not prepared to endorse Feingold's plan: "The president already has the mark of the American people that he's the worst president we've ever had, and I don't think we need a censure resolution in the Senate to prove that."
But on CNN's Late Edition, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, had this to say: "This administration has gone far beyond the exercise of political power. They have abused the Constitution in some respects. And I think it's appropriate for us to take the censure resolution up."
Here's more from Feingold's Web site.
Another Executive Order
Walter Pincus writes in The Washington Post: "Be careful what you say and whom you help -- especially when it comes to the Iraq war and the Iraqi government.
"President Bush issued an executive order last week titled 'Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq.' In the extreme, it could be interpreted as targeting the financial assets of any American who directly or indirectly aids someone who has committed or 'poses a significant risk of committing' violent acts 'threatening the peace or stability of Iraq' or who undermines 'efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform' in the war-torn country."
Continuity Plans?
Jeff Kosseff writes in the Oregonian: "Oregonians called Peter DeFazio's office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.
"As a member of the U.S. House on the Homeland Security Committee, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure 'bubbleroom' in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.
"On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED."
Valerie Plame Watch
Carol D. Leonnig writes in The Washington Post: "A federal judge yesterday dismissed a lawsuit filed by former CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband against Vice President Cheney and other top officials over the Bush administration's disclosure of Plame's name and covert status to the media."
Neil A. Lewis writes in the New York Times: "The judge, John D. Bates, said that while the suit raised 'important questions relating to the propriety of actions taken by our highest government officials,' there was no statutory or constitutional way for the plaintiffs to obtain damages."
Here's the ruling.
The Cheney Presidency
Peter Baker writes in The Washington Post: "Doctors found and removed five growths from President Bush's colon yesterday and sent them for tests to determine whether they are cancerous, but the White House said they were small and did not appear to be cause for alarm.
"Bush transferred power to Vice President Cheney for two hours while undergoing the colon exam and recovering from anesthesia, only the third time a president has formally handed over authority because of temporary incapacity since ratification of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution in 1967. . . .
"Cheney was at his Chesapeake Bay home in St. Michaels, Md., with his wife, Lynne, and spent his short time in power reading in the back yard and hanging out with his dogs, spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said. 'He had a routine Saturday morning,' she said by e-mail. 'Nothing occurred that required him to take official action as Acting President.'"
In other words, the Cheney acting presidency didn't go nearly as badly as some had feared.
The Cheney Bio
Evan Thomas writes in Newsweek: "The vice president has become a kind of modern-day prophet of doom. He is seen by many Americans as slightly creepy, if not sinister. Of course, he could be right: Al Qaeda may well be, as recent intelligence reports suggest, gearing up for another and possibly more catastrophic attack. But what makes Cheney so dire, so animated by gloom?
"You won't find a psychological explanation in Hayes's new book. A writer for the conservative Weekly Standard, Hayes is largely uncritical and essentially buys into the picture of Cheney-as-Stoic, a throwback to an ancient Greek warrior who can see the Fates gathering but grimly and bravely soldiers on."
Thomas concludes that if Cheney "spoke out, he might say that he worries so that the rest of us may sleep. It is also possible, however, that by striking out at imagined demons, he is creating real ones."
Snow's Honeymoon Over?
Yochi J. Dreazen blogs for the Wall Street Journal: "Bush administration spokesman Tony Snow enjoyed a long honeymoon with the White House press corps, which had held high hopes that the former journalist would be more open and less combative than predecessors like Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.
"But the relationship between the two sides has deteriorated markedly in recent months as President Bush's popularity has eroded and reporters -- still chastened by their failure to question the administration during the run-up to the Iraq war -- have become far more aggressive in their questions about the administration's handling of Iraq and the broader war on terrorism. Snow, in turn, has begun to lash out at many of the reporters in the room."
At Friday's briefing, Snow once again attacked his frequent foil, Helen Thomas, accusing her of criticizing U.S. troops more than she criticized Iraqi insurgents.
Writes Dreazen: "Other journalists who have felt Snow's rhetorical wrath include NBC's David Gregory (asking a 'partisan' question), CBS's Jim Axelrod (asking a 'loaded question') and CNN's Eliane Quijano (being 'facile')."
Cartoon Watch
Garry Trudeau on the value of a tour of the White House press room; Mike Luckovich on Bush and the law; Ben Sargent and Bill Mitchell on executive privilege; Ann Telnaes on Cheney's presidency; David Horsey on Cheney's exit strategy; John Sherffius on Bush's exit strategy.
Late Night Humor
Conan O'Brien, via U.S. News: "Tomorrow, President Bush is undergoing a colonoscopy. So, he's going to temporarily transfer his presidential power to Vice President Dick Cheney. Yeah, yeah. That's right. On the day that millions will be reading the new 'Harry Potter' book, Voldemort will be running the country."
And Jay Leno: "Tomorrow, President Bush will undergo a routine colonoscopy. You know what they found the last time Bush had a colonoscopy? His head.... While he's under, they will temporarily transfer power to Dick Cheney. Well, good luck getting that power back, huh? ... You know what's going to happen by noon tomorrow. He will have invaded Iran, Syria and Malibu."



