Third Party & Independents: Archives

“Poor Condi. That darn Constitution is preventing her from publicly clearing up all the misrepresentations made by Richard Clarke.”

Actually, several people in her positiion in the past have testified publicly. Given that fact, her refusal really just makes the Administration look like they have something to hide.

I was at a panel this week on the issue of Guatamano, and I would like to clear up some mistakes (sidenote, i am actually working to help these people this summer, so please dont accuse me of beign biased, as I am actually with on this one).

1. there are no american citizens at guatanamo. Padilla and Hamdee (sp?) are in a prison somewhere in the U.S.

2. No one is seriously arguing that the people in Guatanamo deserve full legal protections before american courts- no foreign combatants have that. What many (including what I am going to be working for) are saying is that they should be given individual hearings in front of military tribunals to check individually if they are enemy combatants or not- if they are, they are properly being held, but the problem is it seems that we have made mistakes and we need a process to check those. Right now, they are thrown in there with no process- what we want is some individual process, and that is all their lawyers (one of whom i saw at this panel) are asking for.

Good points, Misha. Foreign citizens captured in time of war, should be afforded protections under international law for enemy combatant prisoners, but, they have no right to claim protections afforded U.S. citizens under our Constitution.

Misha:

Regarding your point #1, mistakes were apparently made in that regard as well, even if they have since apparently been corrected.

“By darker contrast, the Government sent Mr. Hamdi to Guantanamo even though he was born in Louisiana.”
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/jones/jones5.php

Hey Misha - I’m curious, how long does the administration plan on holding these people? For the duration? The duration of what? The war in Afghanistan is ‘over’. The war on terrorism will continue for the rest of our lifetimes, at least.

Just curious.

Regarding Ms Rice, I think what the administration would like us to forget is that rights granted by the constitution can voluntarily be waived. If it is an issue of executive privilege, the administration is not duty-bound in any way to exercise that privilege, particularly during an investigation of this importance.

Lee- the plan is currently to hold them for the “duration” of the war on terror- whatever that maens. The most extreme right-wing guy on the panel I went to said he expects it to be about 20 years (i do not know where he got that number). Interesting, 20 years is what John Walker Lind got, so I dont think thats disproportionate. Honestly, if these people are really terrorists, then they deserved lifetime in prison in my view. the problem is we NEED to make sure we actually have the RIGHT guys in there. Thats why we need individualized hearings.

Right on, Jarin. It’s just indicative of the way the Administration deals with things. It is reprehensible.

The Constitution nowhere expressly mentions executive privilege. Presidents have long claimed, however, that the constitutional principle of separation of powers implies that the Executive Branch has a privilege to resist certain encroachments by Congress and the judiciary, including some requests for information. But it is a well know fact that executive privilege can be waived if the President so choose.

But it isn’t clear whether or not Ms Rice can even assert executive privilege. The Constitution vests the Executive Power in the President, not his appointed staff members. Nor is it clear that the President can legally extend the executive privilege umbrella to all in the White House encampment. After all, the National Security Advisor’s office has no constitutionally assigned executive function. So the question is can Condi Rice even assert executive privilege as a reason to duck the Commission? A privilege I hasten to add once more that the Constitution nowhere expressly mentions or even implies.

I say no…

A more comprehensive discussion of the points that V. Edward Martin put forward about Executive Privilege and the constitution:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020206.html

Rice was not appointed - she was hired. The Constitution has an appointments clause and it refers to officers of the US such as department heads. Rice is a senior advisor to the President and can assert immunity in a case such as this. As an analogy, could Congress call a Supreme Court clerk to grill them about a decision? Would the Court balk? There is nothing in the Const. about clerks.
Each branch of government is inviolate while working within their sphere. This is also the reasoning in the whole Cheney energy task force case. Congress (or their delegates) has no automatic right to pull in advisors and grill them on the advice they gave.
It is interesting to point out that William says she is “hiding behind the Constitution”. Is it hiding behind the Const. when a criminal gets evidence thrown out due to an illegal search? No. The reason the Const. is there is so we can hide behind it.
As to the Patriot act, it’s anti-freedom tendencies are overblown. But it still gave me pause when it was passed. Thankfully, it was built in with a 5 yr sunset. So, when the immediate threat had (hopefully) passed we could look at it with more reason and less reaction. If only all laws had an automatic expiration.

Todd is right concerning the role of Nat’l. Security Advisor. It is not a cabinet position. Thus, the only person responsible for what Ms. Rice advised, knew or didn’t know, is the President. If she failed, the President failed and the President is to answer for it. Note the following from an interview with Colin Powell contained in a PDF download from this site regarding the Nat’l. Security Advisor role:

It is the role of the national security adviser to get it all out – all the agendas, all the facts, all the opinions, all of the gray and white and black areas written down – and to use a highly qualified staff, the National Security Council staff, to put all of these agreements and disagreements into a form that can be sent back to the two cabinet officers, or however many people are debating the issue, and say: “this is the issue as we understand it. These are the points of agreement and disagreement. We agree and we disagree. So let’s have a meeting.

Let’s fight about it.” And at some point it’s up to the national security adviser to take all of those points, to do an integral calculus of the whole thing – the area under the curve – and to say to the president: “Mr. President, we have heard all these points of view and, by the way, I’ve also gotten your White House advisers – your chief and your domestic policy adviser and the
legislative guy – on this now. This is what I think and this is my recommendation to you.” You
make that recommendation, with both the secretaries of state and defense and all the other
cabinet officers and agencies involved knowing what you’re going to recommend. And then the
president decides. Now I think that’s how the process should be followed. The national security
adviser may well bring a point of view that is not just the result of his staff work but are his own
personal feelings about it. “Yes, my staff’s wrong and so are these other guys. And this is what
you ought to do.” Put it in there.

Jarin is also right. Executive privilege may be invoked, but, the President is under no obligation to invoke it. However, it is up to the people for holding him responsible for his decision as to whether or not to invoke privilege at the polls. I believe as Jarin does, that if the President invokes privilege to prevent the nation knowing the facts on this issue, the President does not deserve to be reelected. A secret government capable of denying the people accountability for its actions is antithetical to the Constitution of the U.S.

Great comments everyone. I thought that Mr. Padilla had spent some time at Camp X-Ray but be that as it may as an American citizen he was certainly denied his rights under the Constitution. As for the others, and there were juveniles among them, I believe the Geneva Convention allows them at least a hearing to determine their status something which they have still been denied. Once we cease to be a nation of laws and let ourselves be subjected to the whim of whomever is in charge we are in trouble.

Good point William, we are a nation of laws and the President and his advisors are not above them. I just heard that Ms. Rice is to be on 60 Minutes tonight; we can at least hope for a good grilling on the points that count.

We are a government of the people, for the people and by the people, and the President owes accountability to us above all others for his actions. He is not a Monarch; he is the chief representative of the people. Come election time I shall remind him of that…

Clarke’s “apology” to 9-11 families “on behalf of the government” was probably the most self-important, self-righteous and nauseating display of moral grandstanding I’ve ever seen in my life.

Can you imagine Roosevelt prostrating himself beofre the American people and begging for forgiveness after Pearl Harbor? Americans, by and large, were made of stronger stuff back then, and the sight of anything but a strong and angry leader (angry at our enemies) itching to hit back and hard would have made us sick.

But Clarke, despite his persistent illusion to the contrary, is not the president of the United States. He is not even in government anymore. He has as much business aplogizing for 9-11 as do you or I (unless in fact he really does feel guilty for the bungling and inept response to terrorism that we now learn he “was responsible for” under Clinton—perhaps he really does have something to apoligize for?).

“The courage to take reponsiblity” indeed! Where is this courage? All he has courage to do is shift blame from where it properly belongs and make a few blood-drenched dollars in the process.

Martin, that is rediculous. A person does the right thing and you call it moral grandstanding. If you are correct, then each time a public official thanks another or a soldier for their service to their country I assume it falls in the same category? It is a nice thing to do, and since no one else has doen it, and since many of the families feel it is owed, it was a nice and compassionate thing for him to do.

Moral grandstanding was what the Pres. did after 9/11 now that we know he could have done a number of things to try to prevent it and didn’t.

The point is that Clarke, while steeped in a contentious controversy, has no business apoligizing on behalf of a government he no longer serves. Can you imagine the outcry if Wolfowitz “apologized” to survivors of the Branch Davidian cult? “Apologized” to Somalians for Clinton’s having abandoned them to the tender mercies of their warlords? Doing so would have been contemptible, even if those recieving the apologies felt they were deserved.

“We know he could have done a number of things to try to prevent it (9-11) and didn’t.”

So Bush is to blame? This is absolutely the lowest and most underhanded smear ever used to attack one political candidate in favor of another—and the sad irony of it is that people are allowed to keep saying that those defending against such a sick charge are the ones guilty of hypocricy and attack politics.

What we have here is classic case of Orwellian Misdirection. Ever since 9/11 Bush has used every opportunity to capitalize on the event for his own personal gain. Does anyone remember back in May 2002 when Bush wanted to sell pictures of himself on Air Force One that tragic day for the special sum of $150 to Republican donors? Many Democrats and families of the 9/11 victims complained that Bush was shamelessly using 9/11 for political purposes but to do so generates the counter charge that to complain is to use 9/11 for political purposes and that is an Orwellain Misdirection. It is no wonder then that Clarke should be painted as partisan and bitter, using 9/11 to promote his book for personal profit and political gain. Personal profit and political gain is all 9/11 has been to the Bush Administration.

The FDR analogy is an apples-to-oranges comparison to be sure. I don’t know if he ever apologized for Pearl Harbor but I doubt he needed to. I do know that he did not hinder the investigation into the attack and he didn’t sell pictures of himself on that fateful day to generate campaign finances. Bush is no FDR. He takes responsibility for nothing and credit for everything. He may not need to apologize to the American people for 9/11 but he should apologize for the shameless way he continuously seeks to profit from it.

> He has as much business aplogizing for 9-11 as
> do you or I (unless in fact he really does feel
> guilty for the bungling and inept response to
> terrorism that we now learn he “was responsible
> for” under Clinton—perhaps he really does
> have something to apoligize for?).

That’s correct, Martin. That is exactly what he apologized for! He’s not the only government official whose anti-terrorist efforts were not sufficient to protect us against 9/11, but he’s the only one so far to apologize for it. There was certainly a degree of grandstanding to it, but it was the right thing to do.

The Bush administration is so focussed on blaming the Clinton administration for 9/11 that it failed to see the benefit of apologizing for 9/11. They should have done it a long time ago. First, it would obviously have benefitted them politically. Secondly, it would have sent a message to the American people that the Administration recognized that mistakes were made, and that they are working very hard to correct those mistakes. I’d feel a lot safer if I knew the government was able to admit and then seek to correct their mistakes. But this administration is incapable of contrition. Instead they simply blame others for their failings.

Unfortunately (for both the American people and for Karl Rove!), it seems it’s now too late for the Bushies to apologize. Now, any Bush apology will simply look like a cynical copy-cat charade.

> “We know he could have done a number of things
> to try to prevent it (9-11) and didn’t.”

> So Bush is to blame? This is absolutely the lowest
> and most underhanded smear ever used …

Martin, what’s so sick about suggesting that Bush could have tried to do more to prevent 9/11? Nobody (or at least, no mainstream Democrat) is suggesting that Bush could have prevented 9/11 but for whatever reason decided to let it happen. We are suggesting, however, that he could have done more to try to prevent it, and that his priorities were perhaps profoundly mixed up. Please give us enough respect to recognize the difference between these two allegations: In one allegation, Bush is violently insane and perhaps evil. In the other, he is negligent, ideologically single-minded, and dumb. There’s a difference.

-Cf

I’ll concede the difference, Christopher, but there lies the rub. If you begin with the premise that Bush is “negligent, ideologically single-minded, and dumb” (an old staple of rhetoric from the left)and examine all subsequent evidence in that light, then entertaining any notion to the contrary can be called—as our friend William does—“an Orwellian diversion.”

In the simplistic algebra that follows you “prove” (quote marks intentional) that any dicussion behind closed doors of Iraq by any administration official immediately after 9-11 is evidence of “a single minded obsession,” even though Al Qaida and Afghanistan were the only ones blamed in public statements, and were the ones subsequently attacked.

The claim that “he could have done more to prevent” an attack that had been planned years ealier in Hamburg and was in its final logistical stages while George Bush was still governor of Texas, is grossly unfair.The benifet of hindsight used for partisan advantage.

> The claim that “he could have done more to
> prevent” an attack that had been planned years
> ealier in Hamburg and was in its final
> logistical stages while George Bush was still
> governor of Texas, is grossly unfair.

I agree (and have always agreed!) that there was pretty much nothing the Bush administration could have done to prevent 9/11. But is that any excuse for him having done as little as he did? Just because you can do nothing doesn’t mean that you should do nothing.

This is not a rhetorical question. Both the Clinton and Bush administration could have instituted air marshalls, could have instituted public warnings, could have done a hell of a lot more than they did. The last several presidential administrations obviously made a basic calculation (an incorrect one) that it was better to not make a big public policy fuss (or create international incidents) over the terrorist threat as they perceived it, but to instead follow a series of alternative, quieter policies including law enforcement, asassination, coordinated national and international intelligence, bad-guy bribery, appeasement and retreat, focusing on stateless terrorist groups, focusing on rogue states and state-sponsored terrorism, and complacent neglect.

My allegation is simply that the Bush administration preferred the “rogue states” and the “neglect” policies more than the other strategies. There is little evidence that they did otherwise. There is certainly no evidence that they were going to begin something more aggressive than “swatting flies”, except to the extent that they were planning to invade Iraq from day 1. My guess is that some Bushies genuinely (and stupidly) beleived that toppling Saddam would have prevented disastous terrorist attacks like 9/11.

-Cf

You say there’s nothing Bush could have done to prevent 9-11, but he should have instituted Marshall Law anyway? You say that Bush was too aggressive here, not aggressive enough there—he should have absolutlely crushed terrorists he didn’t even know existed while not offending anybody anywhere in the world (what world that might be none of us know). That in short he should have just waved the magic presidential fairy wand on inauguaration day and made all the bad guys of the world go away (because fighting them, god knows—or fighting them in the wrong order—is a messy and ugly business that Democrats don’t have the stomach for).

That’s a long list of hypocritical things I said. But I never said any of them. (martial law? crush terrorists?) I never said Bush should have done anything at all in particular, did I?

-Cf

Actually, you said that to address a threat nobody knew existed Bush should have instituted a bunch of security measures that nobody would have stood for. I guess we need marshalls on every bus and train now, huh? Just in case? A wire-tap on every phone because if anything happens which in hindsight might have been prevented by such measures, it’s going to be Bush’s fault? Ah, hindsight.

But I love this quote, Christopher, and I think it demonstrates perfectly the rabbit hole (or should I say spider hole) that Democratic logic has fallen into:

“Just because you can do nothing doesn’t mean that you should do nothing.”

I never said that Bush should have instituted martial law. I didn’t even say that Bush should have instituted air marshalls. Maybe you are not carefully reading my posts.

I did say that air marshalls would have prevented 9/11. I did not say that either Clinton or Bush should have instituted air marshalls.

See the difference? If you read between my lines you’ll see that I don’t think that it reflects poorly on either Clinton or Bush that they didn’t institute air marshalls. Maybe inaction on that tactic was the best choice given what they knew. I’ll give both Presidents the benefit of the doubt on that one.

As you point out, the American people like our personal freedoms quite a bit, and we don’t take kindly to having a government agent with a gun next to us everywhere we go. In fact, that was my very point: that it’s not an indictment of our leadership pre-9/11 that they didn’t resort to such actions. They knew that the American public and many politicians (again, on both sides) would not accept it and would even ridicule such ideas.

Likewise, it probably would have been imprudent for Clinton or Bush to aggressively attack Afghanistan pre-9/11 in the manner they did post-9/11. There would have been an uproar, both at home and abroad.

It all comes back to this: Given all this, why are Bushies so defensive about pretty much any investigation of their policies pre-9/11? We’ve always known it’s not because they could have prevented it, okay? So what is their excuse?

-Cf

Actually, you said that to address a threat nobody knew existed Bush should have instituted a bunch of security measures that nobody would have stood for. I guess we need marshalls on every bus and train now, huh? Just in case? A wire-tap on every phone because if anything happens which in hindsight might have been prevented by such measures, it’s going to be Bush’s fault? Ah, hindsight.

Haha! That sounds like you’re defending Clinton now, Martin!

What’s it going to be? Are we not to blame Clinton and Bush for all the reasons you list above? Or should we hold both of them accountable?

BTW, Martin. As a Republican, when President Clinton proposed the following anti-terrorism security measures, which ones were you personally against?

• Making international terrorism a federal crime
• FBI access to consumer records in foreign counter-terrorism cases
• Increased penalties for terrorist attacks
• Chemical markers for explosives detection by bomb sniffing dogs & sensors
• Allowing the military to assist law enforcement in terrorist cases involving WMDs
• Roving wire-taps

I know most Republicans were against all of them. Lott called terrorism a “phony issue”, and Nickles said, “We don’t want a police state.”

When Clinton and Gore were discussing the legality of US forces “snatching” a terrorist, Al Gore said, “That’s a no-brainer. Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.”

Would you have disagreed with that also, like your fellow Republicans at the time?

Just curious.

Lee, I’m not against any of those measures of Clinton’s. And whatever criticisms can be made of Clinton, when it comes down it, I know he would have done everything in his power to stop 9-11—as Bush would have, as any president would have. But the reason we’re having this conversation, remember, is that Democrats have decided, because it’s an election year, to imply otherwise about Bush. Pointing to Clinton’s record is a way of illustrating the double-standard Democrats have on this issue. If you want to know why “Bushies are so defensive” about this it’s because Democrats are implying their complicity in the murder of 3,000 Americans—and doing so for no better reason than to score points for their candidate.

If you want to hold someone accountable, then look to the culture of pathological hatred of the West in the Middle East—and before you say, “Well, Bush created this hatred,” you’d better consider 9-11, the African embassy bombings and the myriad terrorist attacks long before Bush was president.

Bush certainly didn’t create the hatred for the United States. Who has ever said that?!?

Bush’s supporter’s arguments all revolve around defending Bush from being held responsible for 9/11. He is not even being accused of that! The commission isn’t accusing him of anything, at least not anything he should be afraid of.

And Democrats like me are simply accusing him of being a leader with poor judgement. His decisions leading up to 9/11 reflect, to me, bad leadership.

Democrats aren’t trying to physically crucify Bush. We’re not trying to have him dragged away on war crimes charges. We’re simply trying to argue that we were right about how Bush’s policies, priorities, ideologies, and political judgement make him unsuited to him leading our country. I won’t lie about it: I will try to use any arguments I can to prove how bad this guy is. Make no mistake: If the 9/11 commission uncovers facts about Bush that, while not proving him to be a card carrying member of Al Qaeda, prove that his leadership was sub-par, then I will use those facts against him.

The 9/11 commission is different, though. They’re not trying to prove anything. They’re just trying to find out the facts. It’s the Bush administration that’s turned a simple factual inquiry into what looks like a witch hunt by reacting with such a sense of panic and fear. They are afraid that the facts will be used by the left to discredit them. So instead they seek to avoid the publication of facts, period. And they seek to discredit the facts that do emerge.

It’s bizarre that the Bushies are so defensive about this. It’s weird that Rice won’t testify. Watching Bush and his supporters freak out over this, when it could so easily blow over through simple cooperation and contrition. As Commissioner Kean and others have said, there is no smoking gun. It’s mind-boggling.

It’s encouraging, however, that for the very first time in his short national political career, Bush is finding himself without a solid coalition of Republicans and weak-willed Democrats backing him up. This time he’s got all the Democrats and piles of Republicans demanding that his administration be more cooperative - and even questioning his Iraq policies. The guy is spinning out of control, and it appears as if he only has his administration’s paranoia to blame.

-Cf

Richard Clarke says “Bring it on!”

In spirit at least.

Clarke calls for complete declassification

He wants it out in the open. And that’s the worst possible thing for Bush at this point. Why? Because Clarke seems willing to call Bush’s bluff. Could he do so knowing that their calling his bluff would mean perjury charges?

The problem is, Clarke is the working class straight shooter Bush can only pretend to be. He comes right out in his book and says he didn’t like how the first Gulf war turned out. He thought they should have annihilated the Republican Guard before they got out of Kuwait. He was hoping to find a link between Iraq and the World Trade Center Bombing. But he didn’t let that hope blind him to the evidence.

He didn’t follow the Laurie Mylroie theories that the Ramzi Yousef was really two people, one who was caught and remains in a U.S. Prison to this day, and another who suspposedly a Muhabharat intelligence mastermind. This despite the fact that all the witness, fingerprint evidence and whatnot clearly place our Ramzi Yousef (the only one that actually exists) at the scene. He also says that the phrase “Iraqi intelligence mastermind” is a contradiction in terms, describing Saddam’s intelligence agency as the “Keystone Kops of of the Middle East”(pg. 95) It seems apt, considering that the assassination attempt on ex-president Bush was foiled in part because the SUV carrying the explosives got in a traffic accident prior to reaching its target.

Hey Cf, thanks. I couldn’t have put it better.

Clarke will be remembered for profiting off the security of the United States. This self-serving traitor has permenantly damaged the continuity of those serving to protect our country.

It is simply amazing to me that there are so many folks who would regard G.W. Bush’s murder of their own mother or sister as not a problem. He is their President, do or die, regardless of what anyone else says, what facts are presented, what abuses of power are commmitted.

Now I call that loyalty beyond reason. And specifically what is referred to by founding fathers and scholars as the danger of an uninformed and irrational electorate. Let it be…let it be…