Tuesday night's Democratic Presidential debate in Philadelphia included some of the most serious discussions of Iraq, Iran, and global warming that we've had thus far during the campaign season. I was happy to get the opportunity to speak clearly and directly to why I believe I've offered the boldest, most honest assessments on all three of these critical issues.
But they aren't the only areas where the stakes are high and there are clear differences among the candidates. And so, today I want to talk about a few things we weren't asked by the moderators Tuesday night at Drexel University.
For me, it starts with our Constitution. In November of 2006, the American people overwhelmingly elected Democrats with a mandate to change course. Much attention was focused on Iraq, but make no mistake - Americans were also signaling that they wanted Congress to rein in the abuses to the Constitution under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. Over the last few weeks, we've seen issues pertaining to the rule of law come up time and again.
Retroactive immunity. Waterboarding. The qualifications and judgment of Judge Michael Mukasey. Data mining. Warrantless wiretaps. The list, sadly, goes on...
At no point Tuesday night was I or any of my fellow candidates asked about their opinions these issues -- some of the most important the next President will face. Not once. So I want to take this opportunity now to talk about these issues.
1. Less than two weeks ago, Senator Dodd, you announced you would filibuster any FISA legislation that included retroactive immunity. Why are you opposed to amnesty?
Quite simply: you can't defend America if you don't defend the Constitution.
The Bush administration came to the telecom companies, some even before 9/11, and asked them to eavesdrop on Americans. They didn't produce court orders or warrants to justify their surveillance. And the telecoms went along with it.
These companies have some of the best legal counsel money can buy. They know the law through and through. And they broke it anyway. That is inexcusable and I'm not about to let Congress step in and stop lawsuits against them for violating the privacy of ordinary Americans.
2. Do you think waterboarding is torture?
Absolutely, according to both US law and international conventions. And in my view, the Bush Administration knows full well it is.
3. You were the first Democratic Senator to announce your opposition to Michael Mukasey's nomination. Why do you think he isn't qualified to be Attorney General?
A lot has been made of Judge Mukasey's troubling stance on waterboarding and torture more broadly. While I think those are critically important questions, his beliefs on executive power are in many ways far more important. The attorney general must be a reliable defender of the rule of law.
But Mr. Mukasey seems to share the exact same ideology as other members of the Bush administration. He thinks the President has the authority to ignore the rule in the name of national security. Mr. Mukasey doesn't seem to understand the oath we take: we don't swear to support and defend the Constitution OR protect the country. We defend the Constitution TO protect the country.
For that reason alone, he should be disqualified to serve as the highest-ranking law enforcement official in the United States government. For me, he is. And I would hope the rest of my opponents--Republican or Democrat--would agree. Because it's time we elect a President who understands that while America's strength may come from our military and wealth - its greatness comes from our faith in the values expressed in our Constitution.
Learn more about my campaign at ChrisDodd.com
Follow Sen. Chris Dodd on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SenChrisDodd
As a man running for the job, President of the United States of America, who is currently serving in a Congressional position to actuate change NOW, how does it benefit America to elect you on a promise of some change, a change you could actuate NOW, but refuse to do so, NOW?
What good is a man who promises that needed change, tomorrow?
But I would carry the gripe even farther. I thought the tone of many of the questions was accusatory. The moderators errored by becoming part of the story, much as would happen should Fox News be the moderator of a Democratic debate.
A recent poll shows that 76% of Americans think the country is going in the wrong direction. I want to hear what the candidates say about changing course and getting the country back on track. Rather than navigating those issues the moderators decided that meaningless gotcha questions that might garner a sound bite was what the Americans want to hear. They could not be more wrong.
How does it feel to be used by the Republicans?
With all due respect. SENATOR DODD iS a Senator!
He could propose ANY BILL he wants and get his fellow Senators to vote for it 100%, & the "decider" can still veto it!
UNTIL, the COnstitution is RESTORED, which Dodd is promising to do as his first act in office, Pres Hillary would ALSO have the veto power over congress! SHE has made NO MENTION, of restoring the balancing power of COngress, if/when she is elected!
BUT you KNOW, the right wingers are going to b=vote Rudy in, as he is pretending to be able top keep us safe, and he is the most Authoritatian of the R candidates. That;s why Clin ton is the frot runner.....the rightwing is manipulating that just as they have manipulated everything for ..much more than 7 years!
ignominiously if they were up for re-election in 2008. The Democratic majorities in both Houses have failed time and again to stand up to the Dictator in the Whitehouse. And voters may not forget these disappointments if they continue through 2008.
Judge Makasey learned nothing from Nuremberg. The claim that he did not want to address the question of techniques of torture because it might place in jeapordy those U.S. officials who committed the acts is reprehensible. It flies in the face of some of the most lessons of Nuremberg: Following orders is no excuse and accountablity is paramount. The other point I would make about his position on torture is: why he refused to educate himself on the subject and hid behind the very secrecy that makes challenging torture techniques impossible? This "tortured" logic is worthy only of a pettifogger, not a would-be Attorney General.
Lastly, the torture question as important as it is, has wrongly overshadowed the equally egregious disdain for the laws of the land and the violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution's limits on Searches and Siezures.
Part of what I had to cut had to do with your father's Nuremberg experience. To know that this experience would be his greatest moment says much about your father. You have honored him by embracing his principles.
In an indirect way I became a student of the Nuremberg trials much later. On the 50th Anniversary of the trials I was the convener of a three-day Conference at Boston College Law School. Among the speakers was a panel of most of the surviving prosecutors at Nuremberg, including Telford Taylor. The Dean at Boston College at the time, Avi Soifer, seated my wife next to Taylor at the dinner. Perhaps he did that because she is a Holocaust survivor or just because she is charming, lovely and worldly. Even though Prof. Taylor had suffered a stroke prior to the event he was able to carry on a private conversation with her to their mutual delight. My wife was and still is filled with admiration for the Chief Prosecutor who succeeded Justice Jackson. I am sure your father knew them both and I can only wish he had lived long enough to join the panelists. Sincerely, Arthur Berney
There were two major counts at that trial. One was the "Crimes Against Humanity" charge. The other was "Engaging in Aggressive War." The Nuremberg precedents are now inscribed in International Law. It is clear to me that the attack on Iraq was a violation of the Nuremburg principles inscribed in International Law and of Treaties the nation signed. Such treaties are the "Law of the Land," according to the Constitution. In addition to these "High Crimes," President Bush has ordered or endorsed violations of the 4th Amendment, the violation of Statues, e.g., the FISA Act (in full force at the time warrantless wire taps began), and violations of the International Treaty on Torture, either at the hands of U.S. officials, in the U.S., in Iraq, or at Guantanamo and by illegal renditions to other torture chambers around the world
I am sure you will not have the time to air your thoughts along these lines at the next debate. But I do think you might distinguish yourself further by turning to the other Candidates and asking this simple question: Do you believe that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other enablers in the Bush administration have committed High Crimes and deserve to be IMPEACHED?
Next question: How to get NBC's license pulled for election tampering?
NBC has no right to disappear a legitimate candidate or to unlevel the playing field. It is a violation of the public trust that their broadcast license is.
The three candidates who have spoken up for the Constitution are you, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul -- all outside. Free speech is #1! Please speak up now.
The neoCONS are getting more desperate by the day, and now with China and Russia thoroughly pissed off, I sincerely think there are some crazy religious wackos in power here in the US who are beginning to lose their minds and think this is some bible revelation shit going down, when in fact ALL of this SHIT is OF THEIR OWN MAKING.
There, I had my say. Now I am going to go and pray, yes PRAY, to the God of MY understanding that our country will get through this past 7+ years and in November of 2008 -hopefully- REclaim our former high standing in the world !
Signed,
Pragmatic
Democrats attacking Democrats is a dangerous business and will surely give the GOP the White House in 2008. It is fine to debate the issues and put forth your credentials ... but personal attacks should be off the table. I predict John Edwards will be the real loser by calling Senator Clinton untrustworthy and lacking integrity. Bet his financial dealings would not pass the smell test if he were scrutinized to the degree that she has. And sadly he has used his wife as a shield to do his dirty work up to now. As for Senator Obama, has great promise but is clearly not yet ready for the White House. Senator Biden, in my view, would make the best Sec. of Defense this country has had since the days of FDR. You do your best work in the Senate. This country needs you there.
Everyone pretty much agrees on waterboarding
being torture, and if its going to be used,
then define it as such.
Warrentless wiretaps are only going to get
worse as Bush begins to realize the people
out here in America are beyond tired of losing
our rights.
And even if every Congress person could recite
the Constitution, they act like its nothing
more than an old piece of paper.
What America needs is Senators and Representatives from both parties, that will
stand up and oppose Bush policy, and defend
the Constitution, which in effect defends
America. We need all of you to resist the
threats, and guilt trips from Washington.
How could doing the right thing destroy any
political career? We all want someone in office
who will do the right thing.
Mr. Dodd, I fear that you're becoming a true patriot and may be following our forefather's steadfast resolve of the US Constitution and the limitations of government. Perhaps, as you proceed down this slippery slope in upholding "We the People" Bill of Rights and in so doing, demanding punitive recourse of the current Annuit Coeptis Oligarchy government.
To quote Patrick Henry; “ The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
Thomas Jefferson recognized during the infancy of the New Republic that the Oligarchy would try to reassert itself in power and wealth.
"There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents... There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class... The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendency." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:396
Jefferson also recognized how easily people in public office were willing to deceive, destroy, and deny for their own power and individual wealth. "[When] corruption.. has prevailed in those offices [of]... government and [has] so familiarized itself as that men otherwise honest could look on it without horror,... [then we must] be alive to the suppression of this odious practice and... bring to punishment and brand with eternal disgrace every man guilty of it, whatever be his station." --Thomas Jefferson to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1804. (*)