Precedent George Bush

No, that's not a typo in the title. Because President George Bush may (to his own party's dismay, incidentally) wind up being remembered as "Mister Precedent," and not as "Mister President."

George Bush's term in office will be remembered for the precedents it set, particularly in relation to the power of the presidency, and the separation of powers between the three branches of American government. Vice President Dick Cheney has been at the forefront of this effort to "restore power" to the presidency, which he believes was unjustly taken from the office in the aftermath of Richard Nixon and Watergate.

This naked power grab has taken many forms. The most obvious, of course, is Bush and Cheney's assertion that because "we're at war" (even though, technically, we aren't), His Highness The President can do whatever he feels like -- and it's legal by definition. Somehow the words "commander in chief" in the Constitution are supposed to be read "when we're at war, the president cannot be questioned or restrained in any way, shape, or form." Since we're "at war" Bush can do any damn thing he pleases -- torture people, kidnap people anywhere on earth, send people to other countries to be tortured, eavesdrop on anyone he wishes without having a judge sign off on it, hold anyone in the world prisoner endlessly, and all the shameful rest of it -- and the Constitution and any international agreements we've signed (like the Geneva Conventions) are suddenly and magically no longer in effect.

Equally important is the White House's (so far mostly successful) stonewalling of Congress. "Executive privilege" has been redefined to mean "Congress can never ask any question to any person who has ever shaken hands with the president." Or something along those lines. Congress can convene all the committees it wants, and issue all the subpoenas they wish, but nobody's going to appear to testify -- because the president said so. What's Congress going to do? Refer it to the Justice Department?

Even calling it the "Justice" Department is laughable these days. It needs something more... Soviet... to capture the reality of the Bush "law enforcement" department. How about the "Loyalty Oath Department" -- that seems fitting. Because much like any totalitarian government any time in history, it has now been revealed that the only persons hired were those of sufficient party loyalty. Remember the Soviet Union? Where you couldn't get a government job -- any government job -- without your Communist Party Card? Welcome to George Bush's "Justice" Department.

But the "party purity pledge" didn't stop there. It also has applied to (of all people) scientists. Scientific government agencies now have their work changed, edited, ignored, or blocked -- due to party considerations. "Just the facts" is so last century, The new thinking is: "We'll tell you the conclusions we want reached, then you can write your report to justify those conclusions." Once again, Soviet five-year plans spring immediately to mind.

Bush and Cheney have spent years trampling the Constitution and grabbing all the power they could for the office of the president, but they weren't alone in doing so. Congress rolled over like a lazy hound dog who wants its belly scratched and just let him do it. Now, when Congress was in control of the Republicans, this might have been expected. But Democrats control Congress now. They have been working on reining in the worst abuses of power (Alberto Gonzales), but they have simply not been bold enough.

For one thing, they've passed every national security law Bush asked for, even the ones that blatantly overreached. They're about to pass another one, giving telecommunications corporations retroactive amnesty for breaking the law -- since the telecoms have realized the error of their ways and now donate zillions of dollars to Democrats rather than Republicans. Since the campaign cash is now flowing nicely, there's obviously no need for them to be punished any further.

But the real disgrace of the Democratic Congress is in letting Bush run out the clock on pretty much every investigation they have managed to conduct. Subpoenas are ignored without consequences. Contempt of Congress is ignored without consequences. Documents are withheld without consequences. Unless you consider "getting a strongly-worded letter from the chairman" as consequences, which I do not.

Last year, after Democrats took control of Congress, they should have immediately (or, at the very least, after the first time a document or testimony request went unanswered) halted work on everything else they were doing to pass an Independent Counsel law. And then they should have immediately named one to investigate Bush's White House. Only an Independent Counsel has the power to compel testimony -- any testimony they see fit to ask. Remember Ken Starr? That's what should have been done. A year ago. Now, with the election only a few months away, and with less than a year to go in office, Bush knows he can successfully stall on any request from Congress whatsoever. By the time anything works its way through the courts, he'll be back in Texas, laughing from his front porch.

This has been a serious abdication of responsibility by the Democrats in Congress, and as a result has led to a serious abdication of power from Congress to the Executive Branch.

Which is what leads me to write this, as a friendly warning to Republicans. And to Democrats in Congress as well. Because Bush is leaving soon, but the lines in the sand he has been drawing will not leave. They will be sitting there as precedents for the separation of powers between the branches.

If you are a Republican, consider this -- Barack Obama may be our next president.

If you are a Democrat, consider likewise -- John McCain may be our next president.

Do you really want to give the next president these unchecked powers? Because whether they use them or not, they will always be available as precedents. All they will have to say is: "George Bush did this exact thing when he was president, therefore what I am doing is no different. And at the time, Congress agreed with Bush, so if you don't agree with me then you're obviously playing politics with national security and putting our nation at risk."

That is all the next president will have to say. In essence: Bush did it, everyone was fine with it, so I'm going to do it too.

And that is why I say George W. Bush will be remembered as Mister Precedent. And not in a good way.

 

[Note: I didn't want to get too sidetracked here, but Senator Chris Dodd just gave an amazing speech on the Senate floor on the FISA bill that is one of the best speeches I've read in the past few years. If you want some fire-breathing defense of the Constitution against Bush and his minions, I strongly urge you to read the full text of Dodd's rip-snortin' speech.]

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[Michale32086]

>But as I said, SINCE I CAN"T READ THEIR MINDS,
>I kinda got to go with my own gut here. Wait, I'm
>getting deja vu here, I feel like I've said this before.....
>Oh, I know why, because you used the EXACT SAME
>ARGUMENT, rather than answering my point!

And I ask you.. What experience does your "gut" have that qualifies you to comment??

I have the training and expertise. Obama and the other Democrats have the knowledge of the specifics..

And you have your gut...

"Yea, well right now, Mac outranks your gut."
-Jeff Daniels, SPEED

Right now, Obama and the majority of Democrats in the House and Senate outranks your gut.

Michale..

[nypoet22]

expertise? in what? constitutional law? politics? i'm guessing you also might be military because you seem to have a fondness for acronyms and military flicks. in either case, you may attack dodd as a flawed messenger but the message remains. we as a country have an obligation to trust the law more than any individual, no matter their gut feeling or their expertise.

furthermore, cheney, rumsfeld, armitage, wolfowitz and a few others from the bush administration were also part of the nixon administration, which (lest we forget) was caught using the federal government to spy on their political opponents. therefore, it is not exactly a stretch to suspect that warrantless wiretaps might be (or have been) used for political dirt-digging rather than counterterrorism. the fisa law was created specifically for the purpose of balancing secrecy and accountability. that the law was broken anyway, and that no attempt was made to amend it until after the violations were uncovered, suggest a whole host of unpleasant possibilities.

[bgregs]

I don't know what happened here, but I replied, so here goes again:

I may only have my gut, but my gut is there as a combination of my own six years in the Navy, coupled with my above average intelligence, coupled with my 2 decades of actually studying the Constitution and the laws. And let's be serious here, Michale, we BOTH have to agree that the people in Congress (BOTH dems and reps) are not there because they are intelligent. They are there because they are charismatic. And since we are BOTH smarter than almost EVERYONE in Congress, bringing up their votes as an argument to why I should support your point of view.....

[Michale32086]

OK OK OK...

CW, I have tried hard not to make this a FISA thread... OK, well maybe not HARD.. :D But bgregs made a VERY good point in another thread that has bearing with something you posted before CW....

You say you are against the Telecoms Immunity. Because of the Ex Post Facto laws, among other reasons..

How do you feel about the term "Pardons" and all the baggage that THAT brings along???

Think about it in the context of the Clinton Pardons and it might become more palatable. :D

Michale.....

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Michale -

I'm not sure what you're saying. The telecom immunity is against private (civil) court cases. But, arguably, criminal cases could arise as well. So, while I'm unsure about whether a president can pardon a corporation (interesting legal question, that), he surely could pardon any individuals involved, but that would only save them from criminal prosecution.

I actually, even though I wasn't blogging then, defend the Clinton pardons and the Scooter Libby pardon. It may be the only unfettered power of the Presidency (pardons) and can be used however they see fit. I may not agree with the "fitness" of each pardon that comes down the pike, but I strongly defend the concept itself, no matter how it's abused.

In fact, simplifying the argument a bit -- if the telecoms were people and were facing criminal charges, and Bush believed they deserved a pass, then the right thing to do for him would be to pardon them. Then HE would have to take the heat for doing so, even after he left office. That, in my opinion, is the way it is supposed to work. Of course, in real life, it's a bit more complicated than that easy example, but I think you see my point.

-CW

[Michale32086]

My point was, what everyone is calling "immunity" is simply a politically charged word..

Forgiveness would be a better connotation. But "pardon" also is more applicable.

My take on the "IMMUNITY" issue is that it is acknowledged that the Telecoms did the wrong thing for the right reasons...

And the Left is not so much interested in knowing what was done as they are looking for a shiny new bat to beat over the head of the Bush Administration...

Let me put it another way.....

If it can be proven beyond ANY doubt that what the Telecoms did prevented a terrorist strike that would have killed thousands, would the Left's cry for their shiny new bat be diminished??

It should...

Michale.....

[bgregs]

With regards to Pardons, those are specifically reserved for the President under the Constitution. Furthermore, retroactive immunity is being applied to stop the civil lawsuits currently being pressed against the telecoms. Since pardons only apply to CRIMINAL prosecutions.......

[Michale32086]

You are absolutely right.

However, the PRECEDENT is established..

So, we all agree that the Telecoms did the wrong thing for the right reasons, and Congress pardons them....

"We dance, we kiss, we schmooze, we carry on, we go home."
-Hades, HERCULES

Michale...

[sophistwatch]

The good thing about our democracy is that there is a mechanism to undo Bush's transgressions.

Since it is highly likely that a great deal of what the BA has done will be ruled unconstitutional, criminal and, or illegal, a chief priority of the next administration will be to review the dangerous precedents that the BA has attempted to foist upon us and to reject and reverse everything that is not constitutional or legal.

In that process, we will get relatively close to the bottom of where our system failed to prevent the BA from running amuck. If we are smart, we may actually have an opportunity to strengthen our democracy while addressing the BA's litany of abuses.

Failure to completely and unambiguously reject everything that violates our constitution, our laws and our way of life would be the worse precedent by far.

[seawolf77]

The Bush family is like a terminal illness for this nation. Just when you think you're over it, there it is again. Just when the country seems bright again, and you can breathe, you wake up and there is another Bush. BUSH. CANCER. BUSH. CANCER. Eating away at the very frabic of this once great nation, consuming it from within, multiplying with fearsome, exponential growth. Until one day it dies. And what killed it. BUSH.

[BADEN]

"WE WON'T BE 'BUSHED' AGAIN"

New verb: BUSHED = action by person, with no conscience and no sense of shame.

[JennyJay]

Huh - - - Magna Carta - - - taking the power AWAY FROM THE FREAKING KING.

[JennyJay]

Thanks to Cheney/Bush - - - who knew that America would need a freaking Magna Carta???

[theplaintrutho1]

This is a good article, because everything you do / did to me, I can do to you.

These precedents left unchecked can now be used against Reps that I've seen even today on CSPAN still claiming this is good for all.

Yeah, right, until these powers are in the hands of the other party. I'm kinda thinking that's why Obama is considering the FISA stuff, great tool for spying on Reps if He wins.

[Michale32086]

Ahhhhh I see...

So, you don't have a problem with the spying and all that.

You just want to make sure it's the Democrats doing the spying..

Gotcha.... :^/

Michale.....

[bgregs]

NO! I don't want the DEMOCRATS doing it anymore than I want the REPUBLICANS doing it! I don't want ANYONE to have this kind of authority!!! There's no reasonable expectation that this will not be abused, and therefore it should NEVER be granted to ANY person, whether liberal OR conservative!!!

[Michale32086]

Personally, I don't have a problem with preemption.. Especially in the case of nuclear terrorism.

Surely it's better to strike BEFORE millions of innocent people are killed, rather than after... No??

Michale.....

[DennyCrane]

That's a weak argument. If we follow your reasoning, then we might as well bomb every country who could potentially attack us. And they would be justified in doing the same to us. Imagine if Saddam heard Bush's tough talk back in 2001 and decided to attack us. The neocons are hypocrites. They think it's ok for America to wage preemptive wars, but it's not ok for anyone else. No wonder the world thinks we're an arrogant nation.

[theplaintrutho1]

You're right, because there are probably more people like Michale than clear thinkers like yourself.

[Michale32086]

"That's a weak argument. If we follow your reasoning, then we might as well bomb every country who could potentially attack us."

That's a weaker argument.

The determining factor is two-fold.

Imminence and the likely possibility of success of achieving goals by other means.

Michale.....

[bgregs]

That's an INCREDIBLY weak argument! What if the president decides that in addition to nuclear terrorism he can strike preemptively at anyone for anything! It's legal, right, he's the president!

So lets just explore this to its natural extension: you speak some conservative views during President Obama's term. He decides that you are dangerous. It doesn't even have to be HIM that decides it, it could simply be some flunky who listens to a tip that your liberal neighbor complains about. Right there, you are locked up, without a lawyer, without a phone call, without even anybody being told THAT you are locked up, much less WHY you are locked up!

Now change the YOU to ME, and change President Obama to president bush, and change the words liberal and conservative. Suddenly you might see why I would be opposed to this! However, unlike you, I can perceive the future, and say that I don't want ANY president to have this kind of power, since I recognize that it will not only be abused, but that it's almost impossible to put th genie of power back into the bottle!

[Michale32086]

And, if you have any EVIDENCE that this is being done to American Citizens without probably cause, then let's see it..

If you have the evidence then I will stand with you shoulder to shoulder and decry such excesses from the highest hilltops...

But, not until I see evidence... Not innuendo, not rumor, not outright lies, but strong conclusive evidence.

Got some??

Michale....

[BBackSoon]

You know what? I don"t like the way you type. So I am going to turn you into the FBI as a terrorist. They will come and grab you and slam you in some prison in some other country that no one has ever heard of. You have no rights at all. No right to a trial, no chance to challenge you detention and you will be detained for years with no charges and no representation.

Now you say that would never happen, you have done nothing wrong. So the fuck what? I pointed a finger at you and therefore you are a terrorist in the eyes of the Bush Admin. Perhaps there are 50 other people in the prison with you. Out of those people lets say 2 or even 3 are actual terrorists.

What do you think of Due process now that you are locked up? How many innocently incarcerated people are acceptable for every terrorist? 10 to 1, or 25 to 1, how about 100 to 1?

[Michale32086]

"You know what? I don"t like the way you type. So I am going to turn you into the FBI as a terrorist. They will come and grab you and slam you in some prison in some other country that no one has ever heard of."

Knock yerself out.. They will take one look at my record and render profuse apologies and then come after you and slam you in prison...

OK, let me give YOU a "what if", OK??

Would you allow yourself to be detained in a nice hotel room (all meals included +cable TV) for a week if it would guarantee that such a detention would save 100 innocent lives??

A simple YES or NO will suffice...

Michale.....

[DennyCrane]

Actually, the precedent that scares me the most is the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war. How long before some other nation decides they too can attack another nation under the guise of preemption? Would N. Korea be justified in attacking us? Would Iran be justified in attacking Israel? After all, in both of these scenarios, the aggressors could use the same excuse we used to invade Iraq. "They possess weapons of mass destruction. We're concerned they may attack us with them. The proof could come in the form of a giant mushroom cloud."

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

DennyCrane -

This is an excellent point. If I had thought of it when writing the article, I would have included it. Americans, for the most part, have an almost overwhelming inability to see things "on the other foot" -- as you point out, what other nations might do using our rationales. The easiest to see (for me) is torture -- just ask "if this was done to a captured American soldier, would you call it torture?"

But with Israel rattling its sabers over the possibility of attacking Iran before Bush leaves office, your point is one worth some attention.

Thanks for a thought-provoking comment.

-CW

[Michale32086]

"just ask "if this was done to a captured American soldier, would you call it torture?""

Hmmmmm That's a familiar argument. :D

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

By the bi..

"PRECEDENT GEORGE BUSH"

Catchy title.. :D

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

As to the Bush as CnC...

It's simple. All congress has to do is revoke the AUMF, the "blank check" they gave Bush in Sep of 2001...

Because everything Bush has done can be explained by that authorization and the Authorization of 2002..

And THAT is why there is no impeachment.

Michale.....

[bgregs]

Unfortunately I must agree with you here. I think that the Congress recognizes that they are complicit, and they don't want that coming out, not right before they think that they can get the White House. You are also right about how the revocation of the AUMF would stop most of the problems we are currently undergoing in foreign affairs. However, the AUMF does not allow the POTUS to override the FISA law or the 4th Amendment, although I know that the shrub thinks that it does.....

[Michale32086]

This fawning over Dodd is really hypocritical..

Have any of you READ his latest bill??? The one that requires all credit card companies, including Ebay/PayPal, Amazon, Google Checkout, etc etc to send all their transaction data to the Federal Government??

I mean, hay.. He might have a logical and rational reason for promoting such an idea... I don't presume to know what is in his mind. He has more information about things than I do. So what he is proposing MAY be the right thing to do.

But to hail him as a hero of privacy??? What?? Seriously!???

Michale.....

{crossposted to www.chrisweigant.com}

[bgregs]

No, I haven't read it.... Links?

[swift goat pet for truth]

The Dem Congress that did not impeach is also to blame. They are the enablers.

[Sundialsvc4]

Unfortunately, Chris, the bottom line is that the Congress of the United States has committed high treason against the People of the United States.

No, I do not enjoy saying that. And no, I do not use those terms lightly.

Turn the clock back to January of 1961, when a FIVE-Star General coined the term "military industrial complex" and defined what aberrations such an enterprise could do. "Ike was right."

The checks-and-balances system set forth in our Constitution have failed us all, and so, "NOW what do we do?" I don't know quite yet, but ... "DON'T LET THESE MEN GET AWAY!"

[Michale32086]

"Unfortunately, Chris, the bottom line is that the Congress of the United States has committed high treason against the People of the United States."

It is these kinds of emotionally charged highly hysterical proclamations that make ANY argument against the Bush Administration a failure from the start.

It's hard to even CONCEDE the possibility of any wrong doing on the part of the Administration with this kind of emotional rhetoric being the norm rather than the exception.

Michale.....

[bgregs]

As opposed to the supporters of bush who claim (generally, not all of them are this bad, but most are!) that whatever he says is okay, since he is the CinC, and therefore we must listen to him and do what he says!