Today, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca) asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on the following statement by former White House Counsel John Dean: President Bush became "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense" when he admitted to breaking the law by authorizing the NSA to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. Personally, I don't believe it takes an expert on presidential abuse of power to make a judgement on this -- or on any of this President's slew of abuses involving: keeping files on peaceful American protesters, the promotion of secret prisons for "terrorists", abuse of prisoner habeus corpus, internationally illegal torture policies, etc.
But, if nothing else, it's probably wise to get an expert's confirmation in order to help combat the media malaise and help zero attention on the fact that this President should be impeached--especially in view of the fact that he just admitted to committing an impeachable offense.
Listening to Wolf Blitzer & friends, for the few minutes I could stand this afternoon, makes it clear that the media is "debating" this issue in its typical, fuzzing-the-facts form. Wolf asked (I'm paraphrasing), "Doesn't the President, since 9/11, NEED these powers to protect us?"
Forgetting the fact that this isn't even the point, the answer is obvious. If Bush thinks he needs new powers, he must go through the proper legal channels to get them. Instead, he acted in typical King George fashion: he does whatever he wants--legal or not--like it or not.
"The story of President Bush deliberately breaking the law to create a domestic spy operation is a lot of different things: it is a tale of power abuse, arrogance, and contempt for the law by an out-of-control president. But it is also a story of how today's major media behave with near total deference to power and its own profit motive."
Interestingly, according to Jonathon Alter in his Newsweek story "Bush's Snoopgate", "[t]he president was so desperate to kill the New York Times's eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper's editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn't just out of concern about national security.... The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference....
No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story - which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year - because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had 'legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.' But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing 'all necessary force' in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism."
One can only hope that the public will demand better--from their leaders and for themselves.
The good news is that public outrage does not seem to be lessening; rather, it seems to be intensifying. On Monday, U.S. Representative John Lewis, said in a radio interview that President Bush should be impeached if he broke the law in authorizing spying on Americans.
"Lewis is among several Democrats who have voiced discontent with Sunday night's television speech, where Bush asked Americans to continue to support the Iraq War. Lewis is the first major House figure to suggest impeaching Bush.
Lewis said -quote- 'It's a very serious charge, but he violated the law.The president should abide by the law. He deliberately, systematically violated the law. He is not King, he is president.'"
And not a very good one, at that.
PHOTO TOP: Senator Barbara Boxer
PHOTO MIDDLE: Bush says he had "legal authority" to permit the National Security Agency to listen in on American citizens without a warrant. (Photo: Joshua Roberts / Reuters)
PHOTO BOTTOM: U.S. Rep. John Lewis
No comments:
Post a Comment