The symbolism is emblematic of the Bush Administation's revolutionary expansion of executive power in the US: Bush backs the Fatah Palestinian executive branch, President Abbas, in his struggle with Hamas, which was elected to lead the Parliment, the branch closest to the people.
Bush can say the word "democracy," but he means the "freedom" of economic power to have its way, which invariably means a minority of the "haves" exploiting opportunities at the expense the majority "have-nots". It flies in the face of the underlying democratic principle of "one person, one vote."
Showing posts with label branch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label branch. Show all posts
June 14, 2007
April 4, 2007
Ensuring Executive Branch Accountability
"The Supreme Court has long recognized that the power to investigate and the attendant use of compulsory process are inherent in the legislative function vested in the Congress by Article I of the Constitution." [1]
"Unlike executive branch agencies, the White House has no inspector general to
investigate abuses and it is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Only Congress can provide appropriate oversight and accountability."
"the Congressional Research Service reports that presidential advisers have
testified before congressional committees at least 73 times since 1944—including
individuals occupying the most senior positions in the White House from Chiefs of Staff to National Security Advisors to White House Counsels." [2]
"... on the current investigation of the circumstances surrounding the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. At stake is a question of whether there was interference in the administration of justice for political ends."
"Simply put, issues surrounding the administration of justice are paramount and constitute the heart of a legitimate legislative inquiry."
"It has been said many times in the course of this affair that U.S. Attorneys “serve at the pleasure of the president.” As a matter of law, this is a non-debatable proposition. Once confirmed, they can be removed for any reason, or for no reason at all.
But that cannot be the end of the story. The fact that the president has the power to
remove them doesn’t make it proper for him to do so. Depending on the reason for his
actions, it may be highly improper and even illegal."
"If the president fires a U.S. Attorney to obstruct or interfere with a pending
prosecution or to influence the course of a prospective prosecution, he has crossed the line. Such interference is not only improper but depending on the circumstances may be illegal as well."
Attorney General Robert Jackson said in 1940, “The [93 US] prosecutors ha[ve]
more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His
discretion is tremendous.” [3]
"Once they take their oath of office, the 93 U.S. Attorneys are the personification of the system of justice in this country. If that system is to command popular respect, they must be beyond reproach."
"This is the concern which makes it imperative that this committee get the facts [from the White House] so it can determine precisely what happened in these cases" of fired U.S. Attorneys.
Sources:
These are excerpts and citations from the testimony of John D. Podesta Before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on “Ensuring Executive Branch Accountability” March 29, 2007
1. e.g. McGrain v. Daugherty 273 US 135 (1927); Sinclair v. United States 279 U.S. 263 (1929); Watkins v. United States 354 U.S. 178 (1957)
2. Harold C. Relyea and Jay R. Shampansky, Presidential Advisers’ Testimony Before Congressional Committees: An Overview, CRS Report for Congress (April 14, 2004).
3. Robert Jackson, The Federal Prosecutor, Address Delivered at the Second Annual Conference of the United States Attorneys (April 1, 1940).
~
"Unlike executive branch agencies, the White House has no inspector general to
investigate abuses and it is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Only Congress can provide appropriate oversight and accountability."
"the Congressional Research Service reports that presidential advisers have
testified before congressional committees at least 73 times since 1944—including
individuals occupying the most senior positions in the White House from Chiefs of Staff to National Security Advisors to White House Counsels." [2]
"... on the current investigation of the circumstances surrounding the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. At stake is a question of whether there was interference in the administration of justice for political ends."
"Simply put, issues surrounding the administration of justice are paramount and constitute the heart of a legitimate legislative inquiry."
"It has been said many times in the course of this affair that U.S. Attorneys “serve at the pleasure of the president.” As a matter of law, this is a non-debatable proposition. Once confirmed, they can be removed for any reason, or for no reason at all.
But that cannot be the end of the story. The fact that the president has the power to
remove them doesn’t make it proper for him to do so. Depending on the reason for his
actions, it may be highly improper and even illegal."
"If the president fires a U.S. Attorney to obstruct or interfere with a pending
prosecution or to influence the course of a prospective prosecution, he has crossed the line. Such interference is not only improper but depending on the circumstances may be illegal as well."
Attorney General Robert Jackson said in 1940, “The [93 US] prosecutors ha[ve]
more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His
discretion is tremendous.” [3]
"Once they take their oath of office, the 93 U.S. Attorneys are the personification of the system of justice in this country. If that system is to command popular respect, they must be beyond reproach."
"This is the concern which makes it imperative that this committee get the facts [from the White House] so it can determine precisely what happened in these cases" of fired U.S. Attorneys.
Sources:
These are excerpts and citations from the testimony of John D. Podesta Before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on “Ensuring Executive Branch Accountability” March 29, 2007
1. e.g. McGrain v. Daugherty 273 US 135 (1927); Sinclair v. United States 279 U.S. 263 (1929); Watkins v. United States 354 U.S. 178 (1957)
2. Harold C. Relyea and Jay R. Shampansky, Presidential Advisers’ Testimony Before Congressional Committees: An Overview, CRS Report for Congress (April 14, 2004).
3. Robert Jackson, The Federal Prosecutor, Address Delivered at the Second Annual Conference of the United States Attorneys (April 1, 1940).
~
Labels:
accountability,
Attorney,
branch,
executive,
John Podesta,
prosecutors
February 20, 2007
Military Police State Tightens it's Grip
"We're just interpreting the law," is the effective statement of the 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which upholds Bush's authority to detain US citizens indefinitely if he labels them "enemy combatants".[1] Don't look to the Judicial branch if the Bush military machine grabs you off of the street. The judiciary has itself been "captured" by the right-wing authoritarians. Chris Floyd of Empire Burlesque expands on the specific judges in this decision.
Unless Congress reverses the Military Commissions Act, which it passed just last year with Democratic (jellyfish) support, even lackey drivers and cooks who happen to work for suspected terrorists, are now subject to arbitrary and capricious military tribunals, if they are lucky, and detention for life, if they are unlucky.
This police state black hole certainly applies to non-citizens. But if you're a citizen and merely accused if being an enemy combatant, you could also face the black hole. There's nothing legal to prevent you from facing the fate of Jose Padilla, a US-born citizen who has been detained and tortured to the point brink of insanity.[2] The message? Don't, what ever you do, get on the wrong side of the Executive Branch of the United States of America, because the values of justice and fairness are no longer "the American way."
Today, the American way has descended into the murky world, embracing the ethic of might makes right. Don't get on the wrong side of this new American ethic. And, to be sure the right-wing authoritarians know which side you're on, they are busily working with the corporate communications oligopoly to make ours a life of Orwell's Winston Smith. For skin-crawling details, see this interview with Maureen Webb, human rights lawyer and author of “Illusions of Security: Global Surveillance and Democracy in the Post 9/11 World.”[3]
And, lest you think that only enemy combatants can be put behind bars, think again. The federal government is now abusing the murky realm of the Grand Jury system to silence people. It isn't too hard for 'deciders' in the Executive branch to hand-pick a prosecutor and steer a case to a right-wing judge. Then, you face "talking" about what you thought was private or protected political speech, or being locked up indefinitely if the judge finds you in criminal contempt for not talking or turning over "evidence". In other words, the right-wing authoritarians that rule America are using Grand Jury Traps.
History tells us that it's up to the people to steer our democracy, and change domestic right-wing authoritarian regimes. I was once told by a Brazilian, who lived through their US-backed dictatorship, that it's easier to prevent a dictatorship than to unseat one. Now is the time for preventive action.
Congressional and Media Contacts:
Write the US House of Representatives
Write the US Senate
Write the Major Media Outlets
Sources:
1. "Court: Detainees can't challenge cases", HOPE YEN, Associated Press, February 20, 2007.
2. "Experts: Padilla unable to stand trial," CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press, February 21, 2007.
3. "Illusions of Security: Global Surveillance and Democracy in the Post-9/11 World," Interview of Maureen Webb by Amy Goodman, DemocracyNow! Tuesday, February 20th, 2007.
~
Unless Congress reverses the Military Commissions Act, which it passed just last year with Democratic (jellyfish) support, even lackey drivers and cooks who happen to work for suspected terrorists, are now subject to arbitrary and capricious military tribunals, if they are lucky, and detention for life, if they are unlucky.
This police state black hole certainly applies to non-citizens. But if you're a citizen and merely accused if being an enemy combatant, you could also face the black hole. There's nothing legal to prevent you from facing the fate of Jose Padilla, a US-born citizen who has been detained and tortured to the point brink of insanity.[2] The message? Don't, what ever you do, get on the wrong side of the Executive Branch of the United States of America, because the values of justice and fairness are no longer "the American way."
Today, the American way has descended into the murky world, embracing the ethic of might makes right. Don't get on the wrong side of this new American ethic. And, to be sure the right-wing authoritarians know which side you're on, they are busily working with the corporate communications oligopoly to make ours a life of Orwell's Winston Smith. For skin-crawling details, see this interview with Maureen Webb, human rights lawyer and author of “Illusions of Security: Global Surveillance and Democracy in the Post 9/11 World.”[3]
And, lest you think that only enemy combatants can be put behind bars, think again. The federal government is now abusing the murky realm of the Grand Jury system to silence people. It isn't too hard for 'deciders' in the Executive branch to hand-pick a prosecutor and steer a case to a right-wing judge. Then, you face "talking" about what you thought was private or protected political speech, or being locked up indefinitely if the judge finds you in criminal contempt for not talking or turning over "evidence". In other words, the right-wing authoritarians that rule America are using Grand Jury Traps.
History tells us that it's up to the people to steer our democracy, and change domestic right-wing authoritarian regimes. I was once told by a Brazilian, who lived through their US-backed dictatorship, that it's easier to prevent a dictatorship than to unseat one. Now is the time for preventive action.
Congressional and Media Contacts:
Write the US House of Representatives
Write the US Senate
Write the Major Media Outlets
Sources:
1. "Court: Detainees can't challenge cases", HOPE YEN, Associated Press, February 20, 2007.
2. "Experts: Padilla unable to stand trial," CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press, February 21, 2007.
3. "Illusions of Security: Global Surveillance and Democracy in the Post-9/11 World," Interview of Maureen Webb by Amy Goodman, DemocracyNow! Tuesday, February 20th, 2007.
~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
