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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Obama can establish a new tone by stating that he will not issue any "signing statements" when he signs a bill into law. This bogus and illegal technique undermines the authority of Congress to enact legislation. If the President wishes to influence legislation by lobbying members of Congress, he should do so. Once Congress has voted on language in a piece of legislation, the President should either sign or veto that legislation as written. That is the legal and appropriate process under the Constitution. As a constitutional scholar, Obama probably knows more about the Constitution than any president yet elected. By de-legitimizing the whole concept of "signing statements" President Obama can do a lot to restore the rule of law in this country.
Many people are convinced that President Bush will pardon Cheney, key cabinet members and top advisors in an effort to forestall investigations into their illegal activities.
If talking about such potential investigations by the new Justice department would encourage Bush and Cheney to take such an action, we should avoid that conversation until after January 20.
Bi-partisanship should never be a cover for illegality. The day that it becomes that is the day that we have given up our belief in the rule of law. It would send a message to future administrations that they can get away with anything and be protected.
Indeed, the illegality of the Bush administration may have been a direct result of not holding a trial of Richard Nixon so that the nation clearly understood what crimes were committed. He could still have been pardoned from serving a sentence but there would have been a full accounting and accountability. Let's not make that mistake again.
He'll just do the equivalent of what Clinton did. Does that comfort you?
If Nancy would get off her ass and start Impeachment Proceedings, the pardoning powers go away. Win or Lose, those powers would be gone and then later they can be brought up on civil charges if the Impeachment didn't stick. You let them pardon people, it gets a lot messier. Vincent Bugliosi is waiting in the wings to charge these criminals for First Degree Murder, either way.
I think he should wait until the mantle of power has passed to him. Otherwise Bush will think Obama is not worthy of the presidency and may bomb Iran or Cuba or Venezuela or something like that to declare a state of emergency and suspend the transfer of power.
I have had this question since Mr. Obama secured the nomination. Of course, it was not answered or even addressed during the general campaign. All of his true blue supporters believe he will, but his vote on the FISA bill didn't give me much confidence. I do have a question about Addington's legal opinions with respect to how they bind any new president. How can one unelected person render a legal opinion in secret that is binding on the next administration?
Very Good question and once again I'm holding out hope for the correct answer.
Obama: I don't carry a Council on Foreign Relations card or know any 'special handshake'David Edwards and Eric Mayes
Published: Monday March 31, 2008
"Obama also spoke about the Patriot Act, which he voted to re-authorize.
The Patriot Act is not the problem, he said. A series of executive orders is what has really eroded civil liberties.
"Most of the problem that we have had in civil liberties were not done in the Patriot Act they were done in executive order by George W. Bush...I will reverse them with the stroke of a pen," he said, listing the establishment of Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretaps and the suspension of Habeas Corpus.
Other parts of the law were valid, he said.
"There were some provisions in the Patriot Act that did address changes that needed to take place," said Obama, citing as an example a clause that now allows the government to tap cellular phones.
His work he said, kept many of the worst portions of the law from being re-enacted.
"We instituted a series of amendments that changed some of the worst excesses of the previous law," he said. -
Obama said the same thing several times in town hall meetings.
Bush proved one thing to me..I'm a very bad judge of character.I voted for Obama,it was a scary decision considering I was so wrong about Bush.
To what purpose? Until Obama assumes office he can do nothing. Telegraphing his intentions may make YOU feel better, but it would only complicate actually solving the problems. So of course he should stir the pot now. Let's do all we can to ensure the atmosphere in Washington stays as partisan and poisonous as possible. We wouldn't want the Republicans to not do all in their power to obstruct any future policy proposals, right? After all its not really about governing is it? What really matters are the empty gestures that let you express your righteous indignation and give you that warm fuzzy SUPERIOR feeling.
Damn right we're going to "telegraph". We're going to telegraph that we're going to rise up and take this country BACK. Get on board or get run over, apologist man.
Got nihilism?
Obviously, Dick Cheney does not think David Addington's legal opinions are going to protect him from future prosecution. There is something sinister yet to be exposed.
For now, we have a new president-elect. In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president.
The recent Republican president was granted all kinds of passes in the beginning. He squandered all he was given. It is called a betrayal of trust.
Been a little busy with cut and paste, eh? You have the same comment on 14 posts...
Any president should enter office with the respect and loyalty that comes with the position. For most of the country, even after a contentious election, Bush was given the benefit of the doubt.
He most certainly had the country (and world) behind him after 9-11. It is his own fault that he squandered this goodwill and brought the country so far down a bad path that only the most ardent of partisans still support him.
So, until Obama starts a war on the wrong enemy, explodes the national debt, runs up the deficit and "earns" a record low approval rating, I think he will be OK on the loyalty and respect front.
So let me get this straight. After every leading democrat gave speeches (you can look it up) saying there were WMD'S and he was going to use them and we must have regime change and then we find out we did put an end to the monster and his 2 sons reign of terror which included using live children as pet food and raping woman in front of their families you guys still want to charge Bush with war crimes.
I agree. The Republicans can do this in many ways. For Obama's confirmation picks they can adopt the "Obama principal" and filibuster or vote against anyone they think is too "extreme". They can also block everything he pushes for to prevent him from establishing a legacy. Should the Republicans treat Obama as well as the Democrats treated Bush --- Yes They Can!!
Actually, I'd prefer that kind of behavior stop. I'm tired of reading how the president is Hitler and the devil and other nonsense.
Wah? An administration that lied to go to war over oil and murdered one million native people of Iraq and had over 4200 of our men and women blown to bits, isn't the devil? No, you're right, they're not. They're War Criminals and will be dealt with. Believe that.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
