| Page 2 of 5 < > |
Battered Congress Syndrome
|
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.
|
But Rowley notes that Bates also "questioned whether the court 'should jump into' the fight between Congress and Bush as the president's term is nearing its end. In six months, 'the subpoena will expire' and 'there will be a new president and a new Congress,' Bates said."
FISA Watch
I wrote in Friday's column about the latest greatest congressional cave-in. The House approved a warrantless surveillance bill that would broadly extend Bush's powers and essentially guarantee immunity against civil lawsuits to the telecommunications companies that participated in Bush's program. The new law would prohibit federal judges from addressing the merits of these suits, effectively telling them to simply make sure each company received a permission slip from the president.
The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board writes: "The cover-up is nearly complete. With congressional approval, the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping on Americans' overseas phone calls and e-mail for nearly six years will be spared the third-degree treatment by any judge or jury.
"At the same time, Bush or his successor would have virtual free rein to continue the massive antiterror surveillance sweeps of communications to and from this country.
"Whatever the risk from another terror attack, Americans' privacy would be the assured casualty from these antiterror tactics."
Executive Power Watch
James Risen writes in the New York Times: "President Bush's drive for the greatest expansion in executive power since the Nixon era is slowly grinding to a halt after years of challenges by the courts, Congress, and now, the political calendar. Yet that hardly means that he has been pushed all the way back to Sept. 10, 2001.
"The United States Supreme Court recently ruled against Mr. Bush, saying that detainees at Guantánamo Bay can contest their detention in court. But Congress has allowed some key administration tactics in the war on terror to continue, including the use of some harsh interrogation techniques by the Central Intelligence Agency and broad authority to wiretap Americans.
"As a result, the next president will inherit powers much expanded since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington."
Addington's a Bear
The man who knows the White House's deepest, darkest secrets is coming to Capitol Hill on Thursday to testify at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the administration's interrogation policies.
Yes, David S. Addington -- Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, lead loyalist and deputy puppet-master -- is actually going to take questions in public. See my September 5 column for more about how Addington has been at the center of pretty much all the Bush administration's assertions of unfettered executive power in wartime.
Over at Slate, I write about how important it is that the Judiciary Committee not blow its big chance to get some important information out of Addington. My suggestion -- given how tough a nut Addington will be to crack -- is for committee Democrats not to fire random, glancing shots in five-minute round-robins, but to collectively cede their time to one or two members, ideally former prosecutors, to subject Addington to a sustained and well-planned examination. I even have a few suggested lines on inquiry.
Bush on Trial
There was a pretrial hearing before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay last week for Mohammad Jawad, a minor when he was captured in Afghanistan after allegedly throwing a hand grenade that wounded two U.S. soldiers and their Afghan interpreter. Jawad's military defense lawyer, Maj. David Frakt, argued that charges should be dismissed because Jawad was tortured -- subjected to 14 consecutive days of sleep deprivation.



