The House Judiciary Committee convened to discuss torture on Tuesday. KPFA billed it as a hearing on "the role that Bush Administration lawyers played in creating and implementing interrogation policies that have resulted in the widespread abuse of detainees in US custody." Naturally, it was nearly derailed by constant Republican obstructionism and a very poor, disorganized approach on the part of the Democrats. I'll cite Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison for a horrible performance, at one point called "badgering" by a Republican. Unfortunately, the Republican was right. You can listen HERE and HERE.
Phillipe Sands was attacked by Feith during the hearing, as Feith weaseled around his central role in denying detainees human rights, even though many of them have turned out to be completely innocent with no knowledge of terrorism and simply caught up in American round-ups. Maine Owl has four relevant recent posts:
The obvious obfuscation by Feith and the Republicans now clothed in great concern for international law are striking in light of voluminous evidence of the torture paradigm ushered in by maladjusted characters like Cheney, Addington, and Feith in the wake of 9/11. The books by Sands and a new one, "The Dark Side" by Jane Mayer provide a view of torture planning as it was practiced at the top. (Mayer describes the severe internal penalties for bucking Cheney, going so far to suggest that certain figures chafing under the illegalities not only had their careers ended, but actually feared physical harm!)
A question that has bothered me for a long time is this: Why has such serious lawbreaking proceeded without discernible political opposition? As I said above, the Democrats since taking power have preferred disorganized, ineffective opportunities to posture rather than the impeachment hearing that Bush and Cheney deserve.
Glenn Greenwald addressed this Tuesday evening in "The motivation for blocking investigations into Bush lawbreaking". He writes,
GREENWALD: As we witness not just Republicans, but also Democrats in Congress, acting repeatedly to immunize executive branch lawbreaking and to obstruct investigations, it's vital to keep that fact in mind. With regard to illegal Bush programs of torture and eavesdropping, key Congressional Democrats were contemporaneously briefed on what the administration was doing (albeit, in fairness, often in unspecific ways). The fact that they did nothing to stop that illegality, and often explicitly approved of it, obviously incentivizes them to block any investigations or judicial proceedings into those illegal programs.
Greenwald has much more. But the main point is that Democrats have been compromised by select intelligence committee members who have been privy to and thus implicated in the cover-up of torture and warrantless wiretapping. The result has been passage of immunity provisions in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the recent FISA revision immunizing telecom companies.
This is why President Bush rarely gets in front of an audience he does not hand pick. I recorded it too, but this video is just from the item Think Progress posted.
University of California Television Conversations with History program, March 7, 2007, posted July 29, 2007: host Harry Kreisler interviews Chalmers Johnson on his new book, Nemesis.
Thanks to KayinMaine and Gerald for comments under "Clinton the hawk" a couple of posts back. Gerald wrote something I find quite interesting and profound:
Gerald:Once the AUMF was approved, unless a large coalition of Dem's stood firm and said, "No new money to continue the occupation, only new funds to bring the troops home safely" (which is what Allen has repeatedly supported), the GOP simply said the Dem's weren't "supporting the troops in the field." It didn't matter if I and others said that the best way to support them was to pull them the f'out of harms way - the media doesn't visit my house. [emphasis added]
I think the key moment is the approval of the "AUMF" -- Authorization to Use Military Force. There is extreme pressure and extremely strong bias in the U.S. political system for our legislative branch to sign away to the executive its Constitutional check on application of military force. (In Section 8 of Article I, Congress has the power "To declare war" and "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.") 9/11 has enhanced this bias in ways rarely seen throughout U.S. history. Very few in Congress have seen fit to resist.
This deserves a lot of discussion that I will engage from time to time because I think it is at the root of why a peace candidate like Dennis Kucinich miserably fails politically and peace movements have a very difficult time sustaining traction, even though many Americans are skeptical and troubled by our military adventures. It also explains why the sky is the limit on the war budget.
To begin, I offer the "Conversations with History" interview featuring Chalmers Johnson that you may watch in the embedded video above. Johnson is pessimistic:
Chalmers Johnson: The political system has failed us, and it couldn't be fixed. It's very hard to imagine any president, in either party, that could stand up to the military-industrial complex, or the CIA, or whatever. We have effective Constitutional procedures for dealing with an unsatisfactory president. We can impeach him. One who lies the country into war, who violates the law on secrecy and the 4th Amendment right to privacy....
Last November [2006], the public in an inchoate manner, not well informed, [with a] a press that is failing us daily, universities that do nothing except promote each other, ... We elect the opposition party. On virtually the day they come to power, the leader of the opposition party says "impeachment is off the table." If impeachment is off the table, then maybe democracy is off the table.
If we are interested in addressing the militarism on which our country is basing its power both in terms of active wars and the spread of weaponry and promotion of use of force by client states, especially Israel, we must examine and expose the roots of this political failure. Discussion/ideas welcome...
I'm a few days late in posting on this. After Downing Street calls the Bangor Daily News January 9 editorial, Cheney Impeachment, the "first major newspaper to editorialize in favor of impeaching Cheney."
I don't know if you'd consider the BDN "major." I suppose it is around here, even if it's a few steps below the Boston Globe in New England. But the editorial is very significant. It is a carefully worded piece that backs into the issue a little bit, though clearly it follows the lead of US Representative, Mike Michaud.
The BDN says hearings should be,
a dispassionate examination of the manner in which Mr. Cheney and this administration have stretched the executive branch to the point of distorting its constitutional definition would be enlightening, and could help rebalance the powers of the federal government.
I say good for Mike and good for the BDN. And don't forget, this is a Republican, pro-Susan-Collins newspaper.
I actually feel that both Michaud and this editorial have it right. It is hearings, now, that could make all the difference for the future of our country. They would finally take a step towards stopping Bush-Cheney impunity.
Impeachment hearings? Yes!
For several years now, many grassroots efforts with the goal of impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney have sprung up nationwide. The notion has always been controversial even within the peace movement and the political left. For example in 2004 peace-oriented presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich called impeachment a “sideshow” and the “politically dumbest thing, which anyone could ever and should ever do.”
Representative Kucinich in 2007 markedly changed his tune and filed a measure in the House of Representatives (known both as H. Res. 333 and H. Res. 799) that if passed would impeach Vice President Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors. The next step in the process is to hold impeachment hearings. I wholeheartedly agree holding these hearings in Congress is an essential step if we want any chance of recovering our democratic governmental power usurped by Cheney and company since 2001.
At the urging of over 15,000 constituents who have signed impeachment petitions, Representative Mike Michaud in a letter to Chairman Conyers of the House Committee on the Judiciary wrote that, “There is no doubt that at the very least this Administration has dangerously expanded the scope of executive authority and flaunted the constitutionally defined separation of powers,” and, “Expansions and potential abuses of power by this Administration become precedents for future ones, which lead to further erosions of our constitutional rights.”
Here Representative Michaud strikes exactly the right tone, thank you. Whether or not Cheney ever can be convicted by the Senate and removed from office before 2009 is not the most important issue. Establishment of precedent is. Furthermore, the mere act of beginning hearings would throw ice on all of the illegal activities, like wiretapping, war and torture, that the Administration surely has in mind for its last year.
On February 17, 7:00 pm at the Peace Center, 170 Park Street, Bangor, there will be a President's Day showing of and discussion about the excellent Bill Moyers program featuring Republican legal expert Bruce Fein and journalist John Nichols forcefully making the case for impeachment. Now is the time to keep up the pressure.
This just in from Mike Michaud, a letter written to Chairman John Conyers of the House Committee on the Judiciary (cross-posted at the Peace and Justice Center of Eastern Maine website):
December 21, 2007
Chairman John Conyers
Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Conyers,
I write today to request that you include vigorous hearings into the abuses of power by this Administration and include impeachment hearings of Vice President Cheney in the Judiciary Committee schedule for the second session of the 110th Congress.
As you are aware, the House of Representatives voted on November 7th to send a resolution of impeachment of Vice President Cheney to the Judiciary Committee. I urge you to commence these proceedings. There is no doubt that at the very least this Administration has dangerously expanded the scope of executive authority and flaunted the constitutionally defined separation of powers.
Serious allegations have been raised against the Vice President regarding his role in mischaracterizing information that led to the invasion of Iraq, in similarly mischaracterizing information about Iran's nuclear program, the outing of a CIA agent as political retaliation, the abuse of detainees in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens. As a recent poll indicates, 70% of the American public believes that the Vice President has abused his power.
This is not an attack on Vice President Cheney or any other member of this Administration. Impeachment investigations must not be about the man or his personal life; they must focus on whether the office of the Vice President has illegally expanded its power or abused the law. Expansions and potential abuses of power by this Administration become precedents for future ones, which lead to further erosions of our constitutional rights. That is why these investigations must be held with the utmost seriousness of purpose and must lay all the facts on the table. We do not know what the result of any investigation will be, but this is the only way to restore the faith of the American people in their government.
There must be no other purpose for these proceedings than to protect our Constitution and to hold individuals accountable if they have broken the law. Most importantly, we must act in a way that will heal the growing bitter divide within our country and end the disillusionment that many Americans feel toward their government.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue of such great importance. I look forward to working with you to strengthen our democracy and our nation.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Michaud
Member of Congress
After Downing Street picked up on Rep. Michaud's letter yesterday. They comment that "Michaud is not among the 25 cosponsors of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's H Res 333 (also known as H Res 799)". Call Rep. Michaud and urge him to add his name to the list of co-sponsors.
Maine Owl is a comment & nature photography blog. It is written by The Owl, a long-time peace & justice activist now residing in the Bangor, Maine area...
