President Elect Obama: Denounce and Renounce

I spent most of the weeks between the conventions and the election reading two essential books: Jane Mayer's The Dark Side and Barton Gellman's Angler. Both cast essential light, the first from a systemic perspective and the second from a personal one, on the degree to which Vice President Cheney created a secret cabal inside the Executive Branch. That cabal, co-headed by Cheney's ultra-pugnacious in-house lawyer David Addington, proceeded to eviscerate laws and treaties, paving them over with a series of (in some cases, still-secret) legal opinions binding on the Executive Branch, whose power Cheney (though publicly disavowing his membership in that branch) was determined to increase.

Those members of the government with legislative or constitutional responsibilities to weigh in on these matters, but whom the Cheney team didn't trust, simply weren't "read in" on the new policies. So State Department experts on the law of war, Defense Department JAGS, even Condi Rice and Colin Powell, all found out about these new policies--involving, at a minimum, detention, rendition, and interrogation methods that were designed to shock the conscience--in the press, as a fait accompli, if they found out about them at all.

It was an eerie experience, reading this material during an election campaign where such matters were rarely if ever mentioned. One benefit of keeping your most prized policies secret is that they don't get debated during an election, because they don't show up on polls of voters' concerns.

So, the question needs to be asked of the President-elect: do you plan to denounce and renounce these extra-Constitutional ways of doing business, and the illegal policies that resulted, before you take office? Because, one is entitled to fear that, if you don't, one day, when things get tough (as they will), you will look at this secret little tool chest, and it will appear all too tempting.

Comments

[berrycooda]

Why would he do that when the Congress that he was a part of has to share some of the blame for what has happened in this country.

Also, the ACLU has played a huge part in some of the messes in America.
They are Anti-Christian in most instances. Plus in most cased, they defend criminals over victims.
And wishy-washy people don't stand up to them because the ACLU is made up of lawyers and this
is how they make their money. They bring lawsuits and charge huge fees so people don't fight them.

Let Pres-elect Obama get into the Presidency and maybe see clearer the reason for some of the
policies and go from there if they should be changed or not.
Our Constitution has been stepped on for a long time...We need wise people in government.

Also, if the laws, that are on the books already were followed, maybe we
wouldn't have some of the messes we are in.
America has been safe for the past 7 years....so give the Bush Administration some credit.
You can't be safe when you don't do something to prevent bad things from repeating themselves.

[steve52]

Obama is the Unitary Executive, and Republicans are scared to death. That is at the root of all their bloviating about bipartisanship. They know that, if Obama chooses, he can do whatever he wants to.

And they made it OK.

[LightningJoe]

Yes they did, Steve -- or at least they made a precedent for it. I think we know, that if a Republican had made it in, we wouldn't see any roll-back in those new (and illegal) "powers."

But that's not who Obama is, and it's not the way he'll govern. I'd be very surprised, in fact, if some of his first moves didn't directly address the issue of presidential over-reach. It would be too unbelievably ironic, if the first President (in a long time) to make it into office saying that the people are the real rulers -- then turned around and said no, it's me, the New Emperor, who'll be running things all MY way.

I feel confident that this not-so-subtle point is not lost on Barack Obama.

[fpie]

I'm hopeful that Joe Biden will be of great assistance in sorting out the legal messes Cheney/Bush have created. Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee for a long stretch even though his chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has given him the reputation for his expertise and contacts in international affairs. You might have noted that the Thursday conference table meeting videos/photos show Biden seated at the right hand of President-elect Obama. We all need to remember that Obama is an expert himself on Constitutional Law having taught it for a number of years at the university level. I think he will do fine sorting out some of this. It could prove more difficult when the Congress itself must rectify their faulty legislation. I wouldn't count on the courts, loaded in a number of areas with Bush appointments some of of them being of the ilk of the Federalist Society, to rectify horrors like the PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act. I am heartened to have read a quote by one of the Republican members of Congress to the effect that they were now allowed to think.

[crowmd1]

CAPTAINSKIPPY you hit it right on the head. The propaganda media machine is at full tilt on that one. They don't want people to think about all the illegalities this administration has done. The problem from a legal stand-point is the Bush admin. would just go ahead and do what ever it wanted damn the law,lie about it,then when they'd be found out,they would quickly get congress to make it legal with retroactive immunity or worse still executive privilege.

Now the first test of the Obama presidency he said he was going to tackle the economy. Ok, Is he going to have his economists take on this wall street deal of Bush's? I read already Paulson has done everything that they said they wouldn't do with it. The same players who caused it are dancing in the streets right now with our money.

And just like the Iraq deal with Halliburton they left it up to a major private contractor with shady past deals and a long history of questionable business practices,Mellon Bank of New York. Not to mention they said the books would be more transparent,hasn't been yet. So let's see if Obama passes the first test and if he does the right thing here.Because if he doesn't do any reform of wall street and the bail-out? Then he'll just be smoke and mirrors.

[SoutheastReview]

Everything that I read and hear so far suggests that a 'business-as-usual' agenda is upcoming as the transition transpires. Thus, the 'usual suspects' will be developing and dispensing policy. To me, this--and not Cheney's actions as such, although they are criminal, as well as morally indefensible--is the nub of our problem. Until we are 'at the table' instead of grubbing crumbs from it and commenting on how we might set it better, this presidency will just further amplify the prelude to tragedy that has typified American imperial pretensions since the end of World War Two.

In other words, Obama's job is not to 'renounce' anything. On the contrary, our task is to take the President elect at his word and show up at the "doors to government" that he swore he would hold open for us. Once inside, then we need to make sure that we gain the microphone, the seat at the table, and the policy pulpit along with the TFK's and GOB's who so far appear to be the socio-political set about to make the rules once again in our name.

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

Q. Why wasn't this a big issue in the campaign? A. Because there is NO plan to do anything about this - it's all about "Moving Forward", not getting "bogged down" in the past.
Sounds like nobody caught the real meaning when it was phrased that way. Too late already!!

[LightningJoe]

This is the (intended) trap, in forgetting history before it is understood. This is what Republicans mean, when they accuse Progressives of "dredging up old business."

Ever notice that bad press (for Republicans) always gets a "Why can't we move on?" from Faux Nooz, while REAL old business, that's been dissected to death, like Obama's alleged "palling around" with Bill Ayers, is still somehow "being swept under the rug," and "not being addressed," despite the fact that it's been covered in exhaustive detail long ago, in any media worth the name?

It's easy for Faux to make conservatives look like victims when they get to choose which issues will be examined or not; and when they defy common sense by telling their hypnotized minions that dead issues are still current.

Their viewers will never know, either. They don't read, or find information for themselves. They just foolishly hold their minds wide open, when their "friends" O'Rielly and Hannity are spouting their hateful nonsense.

[thinkinggrandma]

I agree with your comment but you did not go far enough. We can only hope that Obama will consider restoring the constitution to it's original state and intent. The Patriot Act needs to go, spying on American Citizens needs to end. Going back to accountable search warrents signed by judges or magistrates for justifiable clause. We need freedom of the press back, we are now ranked 36th in the world for a free press. How did that happen? We originated the idea of a free press. We do not want to see reporters and journalists jailed for not divulging their sources. We need the First Amendment restored and honored !! I know that there those that abuse it; but it is the only way sure that true news gets printed with all the facts and no reprisals.

[alumtrix]

Harry, Oh Sweety, bless your little heart. Torture, the fun stuff that makes your little heart ache, has been going on since conception was invented and I don't think it's going anywhere, anytime soon. Yes, if you're a little grunt with little black army boots, they'll treat you nice with 3 squares and a cot. Otherwise, you'll probably be licking the scabs off your elbows. And I don't care.
I really, truly hope that Obama has a great presidency. Not only for himself but for the country as a whole. And I know deep down inside that other than Obama taking away my right to listen to whatever radio talk show I want to, he's going to be normal. But there's something inside me that is saying that the country will look back and question why we didn't connect the dots. Obama has laid out in front of us a whole host of clues and tidbits but never the entire thing. Only time will tell.

[Grit]

I would hope Obama wants to govern legally. Bush and Co. have broken so many laws its mind boggling. I wonder what he intends on doing about all the political prisoners this country is now holding, including the two border agents in texas. I wonder if defendants will be allowed to attend their own trials, or talk to their lawyers in the future under Obama. I wonder if we will stop kidnapping people and sending them to places in middle east for torture and imprisonment without being charged with anything. I wonder if we will stop spying on our own people without warrant. This could all be done very easy and quickly. The hard part will be stopping the hate. I wonder if we can ever achieve the Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, what is done to the least of these is done to me. I am my brother's keeper. Who knows maybe things will improve till we forget again and start listening to the voices that lead us into the next great ecomomical and moral depression.

[FairyBear2000]

I hope he'll do it at the State of the Union and asks Congress to pass his new policy into law.
I hope he'll renounce torture during his inagural address when the whole world is watching.
The other day on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" Abp. Desmond Tutu said he hoped Pres. Obama would publicly apologize to the world for America's taking the country to war based on a lie. I wish he would.
I'm not convinced any of these will happen...if any of them do I'll be happy.

[alumtrix]

............."Desmond Tutu said he hoped Pres. Obama would publicly apologize to the world for America's taking the country to war based on a lie"..............

Just wondering, did Tutu reference which lie he was referring to? Was it the lie that Clinton told the nation that Iraq had WMD's? Or when any dem in Congress backed Clinton and said Iraq had WMD's? Or was it only the lie that Bush told about Iraq having WMD's?
Isn't it amazing how the mind can block out things it doesn't want to hear or acknowledge?

[wideout179]

Does it matter 'who' it may have been that led us down this odeous path? Lies are lies are lies. Saddam had WMD's- we sold them to him! However, he had no plans to use them against anyone (and had most likely destroyed them before our invasion), especially after we humiliated him during the first Gulf War. Sure, taking him out was a great idea, but it was based on faulty premises.

[sharpsteve]

Great question that needs to be addressed and so will probably not be.

History shows that given the opportunity Obama will use those powers, not give them up. If he truly stands for change this would be his first act as President. After all, it is the oath the he will take to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution.

Thanks for trying to bring this question to the front Harry!

[OdaNobunaga]

If it's any assurance, at change.gov, look up the section on ethics. I think you will find it..... excellent.

[talldeb]

Thanks for the new website link!

[huffingted]

calm down. stop telling him what to do. he has a LOT to do, and need to approach it all as he sees fit. Taking on everything at once is not going to work. the economy comes first.

[a567and8]

YES!YES!YES! That has been a basic concern of mine since this election began! "WHEN IS SOMEONE GOING TO WORK ON RESTORNG THE RULE OF LAW!?" Clearly the Chaney-cabal as it's called were moving toward fascism with remarkable speed. Obviously, they didn't think of themselves that way but they did give themselves the base from which such a push naturally proceeds: a belief in the sanctity of "states rights" and a belief in basic republicanism. "States rights" is nothing but the cover for a viciously classified populous with dark skins at the bottom, poor whites just above, and a middle and upper class who enjoy the fruits of everyone's labor. American began as a republic--the rule of the whole by an enlightened minority. Gradually we have begun to evolve towards being a democracy--the rule of the whole people through direct, representative elections. We must take out the Bushzis "improvements", just the way a stage director takes out the "improvements" made by the cast to his staging as the performances become sloppy! And the public needs to be taught about the violation of the rule of law by Bush et al. Forewarned is forearmed and we need to recognize this viciousness the second time around. Yes, dears, "They'll be baaaaaack!"

[super]

Whether or not Obama denounces and renounces these powers of the unitary executive, what is to prevent him from secretly exercising them later on? His word? What is to prevent a future administration from doing so? Precedent? If they are not challenged by Congress, repudiated by the courts and violations punished, what is to prevent a future administration from "reclaiming" these powers?

[wordgrl]

What "Super" says is spot on. Because the congress did nothing, it is now an option for presidents hereafter to take these powers or leave them. I'm sure congress thinks it has too much to do between now and January 20th to bother with such small things as repudiating these powers, but I believe nothing is more important.

Just because we have a new president elect, we cannot relax. The Democrats in congress, newly elected and old, must be pressured to take a stand on this.

[antirepublocrat]

There's absolutely no chance Congress will act. They refused to impeach because much of the Democratic leadership was briefed on things like torture and warrantless wiretaps. Their complicity (Pelosi particularly) would have been exposed. Besides, rendition got started in the Clinton Administration.

There are really only a couple long-shot possibilities. The first would be for Obama to appoint a real surprise as Attorney General that would investigate these crimes and bring them to trial. An ethical Republican committed to the rule of law and restoration of the Constitution would fit the bill, someone like Bruce Fein. I don't expect this to happen, especially since Obama's very first appointment was Rahm Emanuel.

Another possibility would be for Congress to initiate a Constitutional Amendment making it easier to remove the President or Supreme Court justices from office. It's obvious a 2/3 majority for conviction in the Senate is way too high. I believe a Constitutional Amendment can not be vetoed, and Congress has a vested interest in increasing its own power, so this could be a real possibility.