Independent Commission to Investigate Presidential Abuses - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 01-13-2009, 04:09 PM

One of the first bills introduced in the new Congress last week was a bill "to establish a national commission on presidential war powers and civil liberties."

Quote:

There is established the National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the `Commission') to investigate the broad range of policies of the Administration of President George W. Bush that were undertaken under claims of unreviewable war powers, including detention by the United States Armed Forces and the intelligence community, the use by the United States Armed Forces or the intelligence community of enhanced interrogation techniques or interrogation techniques not authorized by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, `ghosting' or other policies intended to conceal the fact that an individual has been captured or detained, extraordinary rendition, domestic warrantless electronic surveillance, and other policies....

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

IMO....it is absolutely necessary.

Not for the purpose of punitive actions against Bush or senior or low level officials in his administration, but to ensure that such abuses, if found to exist (I certainly believe they existed), are not enabled for the new or future presidents.

Neither Obama or the Democratic leaders in Congress have yet endorsed the bill. While I understand the need to "look forward, not backward" and focusing their energies on the economy, two wars and the chaos in the Middle East, health care reform, etc., to let the Bush years just fade away would be a travesty.

Should such a Commission be convened? Or more importantly, will Obama and the Democratic leaders step up and make it happen?

roachboy · 01-13-2009, 04:16 PM

well, at the purely pragmatic/instrumental level, if obama wants bipartisan support for his various economic initiatives, why would he get behind this?

personally, i agree with your argument--i think it's necessary and should happen and that it may not happen is a travesty.

but i'm wondering if this travesty is inevitable or not, given what obama's been saying on this and the question i posed at the outset...

genuinegirly · 01-13-2009, 04:32 PM

It shouldn't be limited to one president. Seems like a good idea for every president from here on out - the more checks and balances the better.

dc_dux · 01-13-2009, 04:35 PM

rb...i dont think it will die an inevitable death.

There are Obama insiders who support it and Obama can frame it in a way that it is not a political witch hunt (it is structured to be outside of Congress with no politocos on the commission) and is in step with his strong belief in a more open and transparent government.

But I dont expect it in his first 100 days....perhaps summer viewing on c-span.
-----Added 13/1/2009 at 07 : 39 : 54-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by genuinegirly

It shouldn't be limited to one president. Seems like a good idea for every president from here on out - the more checks and balances the better.

I think you need to have a compelling case of alleged abuses before requiring such an "exit" commission for all future presidents...but absolutely, if the new or future presidents are believed to have overstepped their Constitutional authority, something similar should be in place.

inBOIL · 01-13-2009, 06:03 PM

I think it's a good idea, not just to retroactively look at the Bush administration but to have some kind of ongoing, grand jury-style body to oversee the actions that the government takes that are kept from the general public. I'd also like to see prosecutions at all levels for the crimes that have already been committed, as a deterrent to future abuses.

pan6467 · 01-14-2009, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genuinegirly

It shouldn't be limited to one president. Seems like a good idea for every president from here on out - the more checks and balances the better.

I agree. Kinda like we are in an economic crisis and Obama's coronation is going to cost taxpayers over 120 MILLION...... yeah.

Wonder how many people that could feed, house and clothe.

But of course this will be looked at as a bash against Obama. Not really, just amazed the one coming is beginning to look worse than the one going and he hasn't even taken office yet.

Derwood · 01-14-2009, 03:07 PM

glad this is finally happening. every time someone hinted at it the past 8 years, they were fired or blacklisted by the Bush White House.

dc_dux · 01-14-2009, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I agree. Kinda like we are in an economic crisis and Obama's coronation is going to cost taxpayers over 120 MILLION...... yeah.

Wonder how many people that could feed, house and clothe.

But of course this will be looked at as a bash against Obama. Not really, just amazed the one coming is beginning to look worse than the one going and he hasn't even taken office yet.

Can you please focus on the issue of the potential abuse of executive power.

If you want to start a thread on the relative cost of this inauguration as opposed to earlier inaugurations, feel free to do so.

roachboy · 01-14-2009, 03:15 PM

i would think that putting something like this in place as a permanent feature of government would generate more problems than it would solve. for example, the residual herbert hooverites of the world still will argue that fdr violated the constitution repeatedly in the course of instituting the new deal. i don't think that's exactly the case, but i'm also not an expert on such matters--the point is that i can see a permanent feature becoming very quickly a partisan platform for carrying out investigations of less merit than those which were done by the bush people.

so i think that such an investigatory body should be convened each time there is a consensus that some egregious violation of the rules has been done--something on the order of allowing torture or the illegal wiretapping actions of this administration--or the cooking of intel to support a case for an otherwise unnecessary war. *these* are problems.

but i would support that the option be available. maybe this, if it goes forward, will set a precedent for that in any event.

dc_dux · 01-14-2009, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i would think that putting something like this in place as a permanent feature of government would generate more problems than it would solve. for example, the residual herbert hooverites of the world still will argue that fdr violated the constitution repeatedly in the course of instituting the new deal. i don't think that's exactly the case, but i'm also not an expert on such matters--the point is that i can see a permanent feature becoming very quickly a partisan platform for carrying out investigations of less merit than those which were done by the bush people.

so i think that such an investigatory body should be convened each time there is a consensus that some egregious violation of the rules has been done--something on the order of allowing torture or the illegal wiretapping actions of this administration--or the cooking of intel to support a case for an otherwise unnecessary war. *these* are problems.

but i would support that the option be available. maybe this, if it goes forward, will set a precedent for that in any event.

rb....I think the important thing is that such a commission be independent of the Congressional oversight process as well as the criminal process and, if abuses or extra-Constitutional uses of execute power are found to have existed, focus on recommendations for legislative proposals to prevent the continuation of such practices by the incoming or future presidents.

pan6467 · 01-14-2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Can you please focus on the issue of the potential abuse of executive power.

If you want to start a thread on the relative cost of this inauguration as opposed to earlier inaugurations, feel free to do so.

I think it is an abuse of power. Do the people have any say in this matter? Who decided what was going to need spent where?

If not the people and the Obama camp made all or most of these spending decisions.... then that is an abuse of power because nowhere in the Constitution does it say the taxpayers must pay horrendously outrageous tax money for the president to be inaugurated.

Sorry but this thread is on abuses of power, WE all fucking allowed Bush to abuse his power much like WE all allowed the GOP Congress to handcuff Clinton.

You can't do much about the past but learn from it and to make sure it doesn't happen again.You can't impeach a president after he is out of office and I seriously doubt you would find enough support to prosecute unless you linked him to 9/11 directly. I thought Obama was going to bring "healing" anyway. To go after Bush and to spend BILLIONS of taxpayers money, we do not have just to say he was a bad president is far more divisive than it could ever be helpful.

In these economic times and times of "bail outs" we have far more important things to worry about.

But if you go after Bush, then hold Obama to the same standards and if he abuses power, takes advantage of the office and so on.... then you best being crying the same "string him up" cry you are calling on Bush or you are hypocrites and truly not worried about the country or the people, you are just wanting your party to have power, for whatever reason.

The GOP was for the most part very silent on Bush's abuses, but tore this nation up and truly divided it by the travesty they put us through going after Clinton.

Every president can be seen at one point or another "abusing" their power. What needs to be truly looked at and understood was the intent of that abuse. Did (insert president's name here) abuse the power for personal gain or did he abuse it for what he truly believed to be the best interest of this country?

I think as wrong as Bush was and as divisive and egotistically incorrect, he did what he truly believed to be for the best interest of the country. It's just the advisers and people he was surrounded by saw a different philosophy than the majority. 20 years from now he maybe considered a great visionary or he maybe called the worst president in history, but it is for HISTORY to decide now, his time is over let it go and rebuild.

dc_dux · 01-14-2009, 04:46 PM

pan...gimme a fucking break.

Abuse of power is a matter of Constitutional law.

The public ceremonial transfer of power as displayed in the inaugural ceremony is as old as the nation itself. The process is administered by a bi-partisan Senatorial committee.

Whats makes this one particularly historic is that the incoming president could have been owned as property by the first 22 presidents. Perhaps that is one reason why this inauguration has generated more public interest (thus the cost) than any previous inauguration.

As the author of the OP. I will ask you again to take your issue somewhere else...but if you insist on continuing to make a foof of your self with your pettiness to equate the cost of an inauguration with spying on american citizens, torturing detainees, destroying public documents, etc., go for it!

dksuddeth · 01-14-2009, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

One of the first bills introduced in the new Congress last week was a bill "to establish a national commission on presidential war powers and civil liberties."

IMO....it is absolutely necessary.

Not for the purpose of punitive actions against Bush or senior or low level officials in his administration, but to ensure that such abuses, if found to exist (I certainly believe they existed), are not enabled for the new or future presidents.

Neither Obama or the Democratic leaders in Congress have yet endorsed the bill. While I understand the need to "look forward, not backward" and focusing their energies on the economy, two wars and the chaos in the Middle East, health care reform, etc., to let the Bush years just fade away would be a travesty.

Should such a Commission be convened? Or more importantly, will Obama and the Democratic leaders step up and make it happen?

Agreed wholeheartedly.

samcol · 01-14-2009, 07:29 PM

Quote:

SEC. 3. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) Members- Subject to the requirements of subsection (b), the Commission shall be composed of 9 members, of whom--

(1) 1 member shall be appointed by the President of the United States;

(2) 2 members shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate;

(3) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate;

(4) 2 members shall be appointed by the majority leader of the House of Representatives; and

(5) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives.

Sounds like a noble effort, but I can't imagine much good coming out of this group of insiders. These are the type of people who let this stuff go on for far too long. They will appoint their cronies.

It would be great if something good came of it but I'm not going to hold my breath. Democrats have been promising this type of thing for years during Bush's administration, they better follow through now that they have the power to do so.

filtherton · 01-14-2009, 07:44 PM

I think it's probably more likely that this will be a "It's in the best interests of this country if we just pretend nothing ever happened" commission. That seems to be about as damning as the Democrats have been able to handle lately.

dc_dux · 01-14-2009, 08:16 PM

samcol and filtherton: I understand the cynicism and skepticism and share it to some degree.

The opportunity is there to do something constructive and focus it on positive recommendations to better ensure the process of checks and balances rather than to use it to further partisan politics and bash Bush. I know that is asking a lot but it is interesting how the issues and concerns raised regarding the excessive use of presidential powers are shared by liberals, libertarians and true conservatives.

If the Democrats and the Congressional leadership refuse to move it forward, I will blame them

If the Republicans blocks its passage in the Senate, I will blame them.

If the bill passes and Obama vetoes it, I will blame him.

As to the Commission itself, if it happens, I will withhold judgement until I see the appointments and the resulting recommendations.

As bad as the independent 9/11 Commission was, it did result in some positive legislative proposals to improve homeland security. Something good can come out of this Commission as well.

filtherton · 01-14-2009, 08:31 PM

I'm just afraid that this commission will operate in the same role re

residential administrations as my city's civilian revue board operates re:the police force, which is to say, as a powerless, irrelevant, underfunded afterthought of an organization.

Let's just say that I don't have a lot of faith in current congressional Democratic leadership. Didja see how Pelosi and Rockefeller reacted to Obama's Panetta pick? Douchebags.

dc_dux · 01-14-2009, 08:48 PM

This is the kind of thing that has to stop as well:

Quote:

At a hearing today concerning the risks posed by the presidential transition to the recovery of millions of missing e-mails from the Executive Office of the President (EOP) in the National Security Archive's lawsuit seeking restoration of those e-mails, the White House acknowledged that it has done little to recover e-mail files from computer workstations and nothing to collect external media storage devices that could hold e-mails. These admissions came despite the issuance of a report and recommendation in April 2008 by a federal magistrate judge calling for the White House to locate and preserve data from the workstations and external media storage devices. Earlier today the court issued an order requiring steps to be taken to secure files from individual computer workstations, memory sticks, zip drives, DVDs and CDs.

"The White House admitted it did nothing to stop people working in the White House from disposing of memory sticks, CDs, DVDs and zip drives that may have been the sole copies of missing e-mails on them," stated Sheila Shadmand from Jones Day, counsel for the Archive. Ms. Shadmand warned: "We believe our ability to get a complete restoration of the White House record from 2003 to 2005 and evidence of what went wrong has been compromised."

The Archive's Director, Tom Blanton noted: "If this kind of irresponsible conduct can take place despite the Executive Office of the President's obligations under the Federal Records Act and this lawsuit, then perhaps the country needs more oversight of record-keeping in the White House."

Court Grants National Security Archive Motion to Search White House Computers and Preserve E-mails

This goes beyond a desire to hold the Bush WH responsible....its too late for that and only low level staffers would likely take the fall. Although a true and more complete historical record of the Bush years will suffer as well.

But it shouldnt happen again.

pan6467 · 01-14-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

pan...gimme a fucking break.

Abuse of power is a matter of Constitutional law.

The public ceremonial transfer of power as displayed in the inaugural ceremony is as old as the nation itself. The process is administered by a bi-partisan Senatorial committee.

Whats makes this one particularly historic is that the incoming president could have been owned as property by the first 22 presidents. Perhaps that is one reason why this inauguration has generated more public interest (thus the cost) than any previous inauguration.

As the author of the OP. I will ask you again to take your issue somewhere else...but if you insist on continuing to make a foof of your self with your pettiness to equate the cost of an inauguration with spying on american citizens, torturing detainees, destroying public documents, etc., go for it!

I guess you never made it past the first 2 paragraphs.

To me when you have millions losing housing and jobs tax paid extravaganzas are an abuse of power. I'm sorry a government "for the people, by the people, of the people" should be working to help the people not spending their money on frivolity.

I loved Bill Clinton, but he's abusing his power as ex-president by forcing tax payers to house the Secret Service taxpayers pay to protect him. Or any of the former office holders (not just presidents), who get benefits AFTER office that the vast majority of people will never even hear about, and take those benefits use them to stay at the best hotels, make BIG money giving lectures or making personal opinions and not paying a fucking cent because the taxpayers paid for their travel, hotel stays, meals and so on, as did the people who paid for the appearance. Can we say "DOUBLE DIPPING"?

How can Obama, Clinton, Bush, Carter, congress, governors, state congresses, and so on tell the people to make sacrifices and cut back when they are abusing their powers and spending our tax dollars any way they like and basically telling us to shut up and like it? They ALL abuse their powers because they can and there are the people who will make excuses for them and those abuses.

The vast majority of the people in this country are hard working, honest, take pride in their work men and women, who want nothing more than to own a little piece of land and not have to worry about living paycheck to paycheck. But we have allowed those greedy fucks in ALL branches to allow the rich to exploit and make a mockery of our freedom and people.

We have allowed our "elected" leaders to spend OUR money,our CHILDREN'S money and who knows how many generations worth money, so that they can bail out banks who are still foreclosing, thumb their noses at the automobile industry, watch unemployment (reported and unreported) reach heights not reached in generations. We have allowed these cocksuckers to destroy the American dream and sell everything they can out from under the hard working taxpayer. And we made fucking excuses and blamed "the other party".

If that's not fucking abusing power and the trust of the people to you, then you need to tell me why.

So if this thread is truly about Presidential abuses of power let's cover ALL Presidential abuse and not just what fits our dislike for one particular one. And why not go after ALL elected officials and their abuses of the powers and trust given them by the people?

OH wait, that wouldn't fit into your Bush bashing, we may see the truth if we truly look into EVERY elected official in Congress, active or "retired" and the former White House residents abuse of power and trust.

As for Bush, as stated above, I think it would do more harm and cost far more than we have to spend to go after him. If there is such a belief he is a war criminal, turn him over to the UN or whomever and let them decide.

But if you so badly want to go after him, then go after ALL OF THEM (Former presidents, congressmen/women, judges, etc) for their abuses or your cry for abuse of power investigations is nothing more than personal vendetta.

dc_dux · 01-15-2009, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I guess you never made it past the first 2 paragraphs.

To me when you have millions losing housing and jobs tax paid extravaganzas are an abuse of power. I'm sorry a government "for the people, by the people, of the people" should be working to help the people not spending their money on frivolity.

pan...perhaps I never made it past the first two paragraphs in your post #11, BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING MORE WHEN I RESPONDED.

You edited and added to your post (as edited by pan6467; 01-14-2009 at 05:52 PM).. after my comments (posted by dc_dux at 01-14-2009, 05:46 PM)

Cheap trick, even for you, pan. So spare me the bullshit, please.

One last time....funding for the Inauguration was authorized and appropriated by Congress last summer or fall and signed by Bush...not Obama.

In fact, yesterday, Bush, not Obama, declared a "state of emergency" in Washington DC so that the city could qualify for more federal funding to pay for public safety costs related to the inauguration...because of the largest crowd (and highest interest) in the history of Inaurgurations.
(The White House announced yesterday that it will grant emergency funding to the District...)
I dont consider this an abuse of power by Bush and while some may think it is frivolous, no reasonable person or by any reasonable standard can it be considered an abuse of power.

There will be plenty of executive decisions made by Obama that you and I may question...but since he has yet to take office, he is not in a position yet to abuse executive power.

As i posted above, I will be the first to criticize Obama if this bill in my OP, which I think is important to review presidential powers and not Bush bashing, reaches his desk and he doesn't sign it.

Your obsession with finding fault with Obama has once again put you in the position of ignoring the facts.

scout · 01-15-2009, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I guess you never made it past the first 2 paragraphs.

To me when you have millions losing housing and jobs tax paid extravaganzas are an abuse of power. I'm sorry a government "for the people, by the people, of the people" should be working to help the people not spending their money on frivolity.

I loved Bill Clinton, but he's abusing his power as ex-president by forcing tax payers to house the Secret Service taxpayers pay to protect him. Or any of the former office holders (not just presidents), who get benefits AFTER office that the vast majority of people will never even hear about, and take those benefits use them to stay at the best hotels, make BIG money giving lectures or making personal opinions and not paying a fucking cent because the taxpayers paid for their travel, hotel stays, meals and so on, as did the people who paid for the appearance. Can we say "DOUBLE DIPPING"?

How can Obama, Clinton, Bush, Carter, congress, governors, state congresses, and so on tell the people to make sacrifices and cut back when they are abusing their powers and spending our tax dollars any way they like and basically telling us to shut up and like it? They ALL abuse their powers because they can and there are the people who will make excuses for them and those abuses.

The vast majority of the people in this country are hard working, honest, take pride in their work men and women, who want nothing more than to own a little piece of land and not have to worry about living paycheck to paycheck. But we have allowed those greedy fucks in ALL branches to allow the rich to exploit and make a mockery of our freedom and people.

We have allowed our "elected" leaders to spend OUR money,our CHILDREN'S money and who knows how many generations worth money, so that they can bail out banks who are still foreclosing, thumb their noses at the automobile industry, watch unemployment (reported and unreported) reach heights not reached in generations. We have allowed these cocksuckers to destroy the American dream and sell everything they can out from under the hard working taxpayer. And we made fucking excuses and blamed "the other party".

If that's not fucking abusing power and the trust of the people to you, then you need to tell me why.

So if this thread is truly about Presidential abuses of power let's cover ALL Presidential abuse and not just what fits our dislike for one particular one. And why not go after ALL elected officials and their abuses of the powers and trust given them by the people?

OH wait, that wouldn't fit into your Bush bashing, we may see the truth if we truly look into EVERY elected official in Congress, active or "retired" and the former White House residents abuse of power and trust.

As for Bush, as stated above, I think it would do more harm and cost far more than we have to spend to go after him. If there is such a belief he is a war criminal, turn him over to the UN or whomever and let them decide.

But if you so badly want to go after him, then go after ALL OF THEM (Former presidents, congressmen/women, judges, etc) for their abuses or your cry for abuse of power investigations is nothing more than personal vendetta.

You are exactly right.

Now that the Democrats have control of the White House and are in a position to protect the homeland how many of these supposed "abuses" will Obama employ to accomplish these goals? And if he does will it still be a crime or a necessity? If he does in fact keep his campaign promises and we are attacked again who's fault will it be? Now that Obama is getting morning security briefings has his views changed?

Now shift to semi partisan politics. Don't expect the Democrats to do anything about said supposed abuses because the shoe is now on the other foot. Soon the Republicans will start to screaming "crimes and abuses" about the Democrats doing the same thing they did. It's all really pathetic.

dc_dux · 01-15-2009, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

Now shift to semi partisan politics. Don't expect the Democrats to do anything about said supposed abuses because the shoe is now on the other foot. Soon the Republicans will start to screaming "crimes and abuses" about the Democrats doing the same thing they did. It's all really pathetic.

As a matter iof fact, the Democrats did a fair amount ih their first two years in the majority to rein in executive power and provide more transparency across the executive branch, despite Republican fillibusters and Bush vetoes.

The restored the Freedom of Information Act proviisions that Bush killed in an Executive Order. They fixed FISA to some degree to ensure that a president does not authorize warrantless wiretaps of citizens. They implemented the first lobbying and ethics reform in 20 years. They attemted to fix the abuses in government contracting, but Bush vetoed it. They attempted to fix the abuses of the Federal Record Act but a Republican fillibuster blocked it. They attempted to fix the whistle-blowing legislation that the Bush administration used to puinish those who had the balls to raise questions about agency practicies, but the Repubicans held it up in committee. They began to rewrite the law governing agency Inspectors General to ensure their independence.......

Unlike you guys, I will take a wait and see approach rather than one of offering judgements and drawing conclusions before Obama and the Democratic Congress have a chance to act.

roachboy · 01-15-2009, 05:01 AM

let's keep things civil please.

non-modmode:

i should have read the bill itself more closely before i posted reasons why i thought a permanent body was not a great idea. after reading it, i changed my mind. thanks for the link.

what's interesting about the debate above is that i think it anticipates something of the lines of defense.

the interesting question, i think, is that consent for some of the more obvious abuses of power was given by much of the political cadre, so implicates the political class (loosely used term) itself. this was enabled by an environment of manufactured hysteria, however. in that context, it seems to me that the administration clearly abused its power and manipulated congress by abusing it's status. what this seems to me to devolve onto is both the question of manufacturing hysteria and the actions of the administration within that context.

these converge onto questions about a state of exception or emergency, which the bush administration used as a space for governance after 9/11/2001. what holds their actions together is a consistent interpretation of the state of emergency and the powers that the executive can take, or in more passive term, the powers that arrogate onto the executive in that context.

there was obviously a symbiotic relation between the generated hysteria, the discourse of terrorism which exacerbated it on the one hand and gave it focus on the other, and what the administration did under that general condition.

it seems to me that the production of a climate of hysteria is central to all this, and should require some investigation. what the period after 9/2001 revealed is just how easy it is to create such a climate--to my mind, the united states imploded into a period of neo-fascism. this was fully enabled by the dominant press, partly as a function of changes in its business model, if you like, which resulted in an increased reliance on pre-packaged infotainment from the state in place of detached investigation. so for a remarkably extended period, the press functioned as a largely docile relay system for what amounted to infotainment that was shaped around and which shaped a pervasive sense of a state of emergency, which in turn generated a context that made the administration's action appear consistent to itself, and which resulted in a wholesale breakdown in the oversight functions of congress. i think this entire frame was and is deeply problematic.

but was it illegal?

there are actions within this context that the administration undertook which were clearly to my mind over any line in terms of legality.

what i expect will happen is that a commission will end up having to focus on those actions. one effect of that might be to normalize the context within which they happened. that would be a mistake.

it seems to me that there is something deeply fucked up about the role of the press in the united states now---uncritical lapdogs of the official line when that sells advertising, critical of that line when that sells advertising---wholly problematic in the interim, because the sale of advertising, and not critical reporting, is its primary function.

the closed in information model developed piecemeal since the reagan period needs to be unmade.

dc_dux · 01-15-2009, 05:14 AM

rb...much of the alleged abuses resulted from Bush unilaterally determing that the two congressional "Authorization for Use of Military Force" (AUMF) after 9/11 and to invade Iraq gave him unlimited and unchecked powers equal to that of a formal declaration of war. He used it to justify torture, abrigation of treaty obligations, denial of basic rights to detainees, warrentless wiretapping of citizens, etc.

No future president should have that authority.

On a separate track from the proposed Commission in the bill, we need a comprehensive review of the process of taking the country to war.

The recommendations of the National War Powers Commission would be a good place to start.

Quote:

The Miller Center's National War Powers Commission, co-chaired by former Secretaries of State James A. Baker, III and Warren Christopher, July 8 recommended that Congress repeal the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and substitute a new statute that would provide for more meaningful consultation between the president and Congress on matters of war.

National War Powers Commission - Miller Center of Public Affairs

But that may be better left to a separate discussion.

roachboy · 01-15-2009, 05:46 AM

dc---i think we're in agreement about the general problems, but approach them from different angles.

in principle, i think that the bush period requires some serious reflection.
it pushed to its logical conclusions patterns relating to information that were, as i said, put into place under the reagan period and gradually added to.
in the information strategy, you can see most of the features that would repeat in the specifically legal questions that either commission would be charged with.
to my mind, the fundamental question is: what is a democratic polity in 2008?
what role does the dominant media play in shaping the parameters within which that polity operates, by defining issues and by defining the range of "legitimate opinion" about those issues?
what characterized this relationship in the period following 9/11/2001?
what should be rethought in order to prevent that from happening again?

pan6467 · 01-18-2009, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Unlike you guys, I will take a wait and see approach rather than one of offering judgements and drawing conclusions before Obama and the Democratic Congress have a chance to act.

Where in here am I bashing any one party?
-----Added 18/1/2009 at 03 : 20 : 40-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Unlike you guys, I will take a wait and see approach rather than one of offering judgements and drawing conclusions before Obama and the Democratic Congress have a chance to act.

Where in here am I bashing any one party?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I guess you never made it past the first 2 paragraphs.

To me when you have millions losing housing and jobs tax paid extravaganzas are an abuse of power. I'm sorry a government "for the people, by the people, of the people" should be working to help the people not spending their money on frivolity.

I loved Bill Clinton, but he's abusing his power as ex-president by forcing tax payers to house the Secret Service taxpayers pay to protect him. Or any of the former office holders (not just presidents), who get benefits AFTER office that the vast majority of people will never even hear about, and take those benefits use them to stay at the best hotels, make BIG money giving lectures or making personal opinions and not paying a fucking cent because the taxpayers paid for their travel, hotel stays, meals and so on, as did the people who paid for the appearance. Can we say "DOUBLE DIPPING"?

How can Obama, Clinton, Bush, Carter, congress, governors, state congresses, and so on tell the people to make sacrifices and cut back when they are abusing their powers and spending our tax dollars any way they like and basically telling us to shut up and like it? They ALL abuse their powers because they can and there are the people who will make excuses for them and those abuses.

The vast majority of the people in this country are hard working, honest, take pride in their work men and women, who want nothing more than to own a little piece of land and not have to worry about living paycheck to paycheck. But we have allowed those greedy fucks in ALL branches to allow the rich to exploit and make a mockery of our freedom and people.

We have allowed our "elected" leaders to spend OUR money,our CHILDREN'S money and who knows how many generations worth money, so that they can bail out banks who are still foreclosing, thumb their noses at the automobile industry, watch unemployment (reported and unreported) reach heights not reached in generations. We have allowed these cocksuckers to destroy the American dream and sell everything they can out from under the hard working taxpayer. And we made fucking excuses and blamed "the other party".

If that's not fucking abusing power and the trust of the people to you, then you need to tell me why.

So if this thread is truly about Presidential abuses of power let's cover ALL Presidential abuse and not just what fits our dislike for one particular one. And why not go after ALL elected officials and their abuses of the powers and trust given them by the people?

OH wait, that wouldn't fit into your Bush bashing, we may see the truth if we truly look into EVERY elected official in Congress, active or "retired" and the former White House residents abuse of power and trust.

As for Bush, as stated above, I think it would do more harm and cost far more than we have to spend to go after him. If there is such a belief he is a war criminal, turn him over to the UN or whomever and let them decide.

But if you so badly want to go after him, then go after ALL OF THEM (Former presidents, congressmen/women, judges, etc) for their abuses or your cry for abuse of power investigations is nothing more than personal vendetta.

While I admit early on I stated I believe Obama is abusing his power and he isn't even in office yet. I moved on to say ALL in government should be investigated for abuse of power.

It seems by the silence, you wish to just go after Bush and not even think of going after anyone else.

Partisan politics at its best I guess.

Telluride · 01-18-2009, 03:03 AM

Such a "commission" already exists: The Supreme Court of the United States.

The Supreme Court's job is to examine laws to ensure that they don't overstep the limits placed on our government by the Constitution.

dc_dux · 01-18-2009, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

Such a "commission" already exists: The Supreme Court of the United States.

The Supreme Court's job is to examine laws to ensure that they don't overstep the limits placed on our government by the Constitution.

Its hardly the same....nor should it be.

The Supreme Court does not take testimony from witnesses or offer policy recommendations.
-----Added 18/1/2009 at 11 : 25 : 54-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

While I admit early on I stated I believe Obama is abusing his power and he isn't even in office yet. I moved on to say ALL in government should be investigated for abuse of power.

It seems by the silence, you wish to just go after Bush and not even think of going after anyone else.

Partisan politics at its best I guess.

pan....you only see what you want to see.

I made it clear that I did not want to be punitive..nor is that the intent of the proposed Commission.

It is hardly partisan to want to ensure that the system of checks and balances works better with regard to Obama and all future presidents than it has over the last eight years when questions arose on many occasions about the president overstepping his authority.

roachboy · 01-18-2009, 08:29 AM

i think paul krugman makes a strong case for this commission, and for the need to walk through the process that this commission would put into motion:

Quote:

Op-Ed Columnist
Forgive and Forget?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.

At the Justice Department, for example, political appointees illegally reserved nonpolitical positions for “right-thinking Americans” — their term, not mine — and there’s strong evidence that officials used their positions both to undermine the protection of minority voting rights and to persecute Democratic politicians.

The hiring process at Justice echoed the hiring process during the occupation of Iraq — an occupation whose success was supposedly essential to national security — in which applicants were judged by their politics, their personal loyalty to President Bush and, according to some reports, by their views on Roe v. Wade, rather than by their ability to do the job.

Speaking of Iraq, let’s also not forget that country’s failed reconstruction: the Bush administration handed billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to politically connected companies, companies that then failed to deliver. And why should they have bothered to do their jobs? Any government official who tried to enforce accountability on, say, Halliburton quickly found his or her career derailed.

There’s much, much more. By my count, at least six important government agencies experienced major scandals over the past eight years — in most cases, scandals that were never properly investigated. And then there was the biggest scandal of all: Does anyone seriously doubt that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into invading Iraq?

Why, then, shouldn’t we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?

One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn’t there be some penalty for the Bush administration’s politicization of every aspect of government?

Alternatively, we’re told that we don’t have to dwell on past abuses, because we won’t repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration’s political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won’t do it all over again, given the chance?

In fact, we’ve already seen this movie. During the Reagan years, the Iran-contra conspirators violated the Constitution in the name of national security. But the first President Bush pardoned the major malefactors, and when the White House finally changed hands the political and media establishment gave Bill Clinton the same advice it’s giving Mr. Obama: let sleeping scandals lie. Sure enough, the second Bush administration picked up right where the Iran-contra conspirators left off — which isn’t too surprising when you bear in mind that Mr. Bush actually hired some of those conspirators.

Now, it’s true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again.

Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.

And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/op...rugman.html?em

dc_dux · 01-18-2009, 08:29 AM

Quote:

....ALL in government should be investigated for abuse of power.

Abuse of power is not simply a president or member of Congress acting according to a law that you dont like (i.e. your odd example of presidents getting secret service protection or getting paid for speeches after leaving office as some kind of abuse of power is nonsense).

Abuse of power is when the executive branch (or the legsislative branch) oversteps its Constitutional authority.

01-13-2009, 04:16 PM	#2 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, at the purely pragmatic/instrumental level, if obama wants bipartisan support for his various economic initiatives, why would he get behind this? personally, i agree with your argument--i think it's necessary and should happen and that it may not happen is a travesty. but i'm wondering if this travesty is inevitable or not, given what obama's been saying on this and the question i posed at the outset... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-13-2009, 04:32 PM	#3 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	It shouldn't be limited to one president. Seems like a good idea for every president from here on out - the more checks and balances the better. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

01-13-2009, 06:03 PM	#5 (permalink)
inBOIL I have eaten the slaw	I think it's a good idea, not just to retroactively look at the Bush administration but to have some kind of ongoing, grand jury-style body to oversee the actions that the government takes that are kept from the general public. I'd also like to see prosecutions at all levels for the crimes that have already been committed, as a deterrent to future abuses. __________________ And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

01-14-2009, 03:15 PM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i would think that putting something like this in place as a permanent feature of government would generate more problems than it would solve. for example, the residual herbert hooverites of the world still will argue that fdr violated the constitution repeatedly in the course of instituting the new deal. i don't think that's exactly the case, but i'm also not an expert on such matters--the point is that i can see a permanent feature becoming very quickly a partisan platform for carrying out investigations of less merit than those which were done by the bush people. so i think that such an investigatory body should be convened each time there is a consensus that some egregious violation of the rules has been done--something on the order of allowing torture or the illegal wiretapping actions of this administration--or the cooking of intel to support a case for an otherwise unnecessary war. these are problems. but i would support that the option be available. maybe this, if it goes forward, will set a precedent for that in any event. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-14-2009, 04:46 PM	#12 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	pan...gimme a fucking break. Abuse of power is a matter of Constitutional law. The public ceremonial transfer of power as displayed in the inaugural ceremony is as old as the nation itself. The process is administered by a bi-partisan Senatorial committee. Whats makes this one particularly historic is that the incoming president could have been owned as property by the first 22 presidents. Perhaps that is one reason why this inauguration has generated more public interest (thus the cost) than any previous inauguration. As the author of the OP. I will ask you again to take your issue somewhere else...but if you insist on continuing to make a foof of your self with your pettiness to equate the cost of an inauguration with spying on american citizens, torturing detainees, destroying public documents, etc., go for it! __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-14-2009 at 04:56 PM..

01-14-2009, 03:07 PM	#7 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	glad this is finally happening. every time someone hinted at it the past 8 years, they were fired or blacklisted by the Bush White House.

01-14-2009, 07:44 PM	#15 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I think it's probably more likely that this will be a "It's in the best interests of this country if we just pretend nothing ever happened" commission. That seems to be about as damning as the Democrats have been able to handle lately.

01-14-2009, 08:16 PM	#16 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	samcol and filtherton: I understand the cynicism and skepticism and share it to some degree. The opportunity is there to do something constructive and focus it on positive recommendations to better ensure the process of checks and balances rather than to use it to further partisan politics and bash Bush. I know that is asking a lot but it is interesting how the issues and concerns raised regarding the excessive use of presidential powers are shared by liberals, libertarians and true conservatives. If the Democrats and the Congressional leadership refuse to move it forward, I will blame them If the Republicans blocks its passage in the Senate, I will blame them. If the bill passes and Obama vetoes it, I will blame him. As to the Commission itself, if it happens, I will withhold judgement until I see the appointments and the resulting recommendations. As bad as the independent 9/11 Commission was, it did result in some positive legislative proposals to improve homeland security. Something good can come out of this Commission as well. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

01-14-2009, 08:31 PM	#17 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I'm just afraid that this commission will operate in the same role reresidential administrations as my city's civilian revue board operates re:the police force, which is to say, as a powerless, irrelevant, underfunded afterthought of an organization. Let's just say that I don't have a lot of faith in current congressional Democratic leadership. Didja see how Pelosi and Rockefeller reacted to Obama's Panetta pick? Douchebags.

01-15-2009, 05:01 AM	#23 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	let's keep things civil please. non-modmode: i should have read the bill itself more closely before i posted reasons why i thought a permanent body was not a great idea. after reading it, i changed my mind. thanks for the link. what's interesting about the debate above is that i think it anticipates something of the lines of defense. the interesting question, i think, is that consent for some of the more obvious abuses of power was given by much of the political cadre, so implicates the political class (loosely used term) itself. this was enabled by an environment of manufactured hysteria, however. in that context, it seems to me that the administration clearly abused its power and manipulated congress by abusing it's status. what this seems to me to devolve onto is both the question of manufacturing hysteria and the actions of the administration within that context. these converge onto questions about a state of exception or emergency, which the bush administration used as a space for governance after 9/11/2001. what holds their actions together is a consistent interpretation of the state of emergency and the powers that the executive can take, or in more passive term, the powers that arrogate onto the executive in that context. there was obviously a symbiotic relation between the generated hysteria, the discourse of terrorism which exacerbated it on the one hand and gave it focus on the other, and what the administration did under that general condition. it seems to me that the production of a climate of hysteria is central to all this, and should require some investigation. what the period after 9/2001 revealed is just how easy it is to create such a climate--to my mind, the united states imploded into a period of neo-fascism. this was fully enabled by the dominant press, partly as a function of changes in its business model, if you like, which resulted in an increased reliance on pre-packaged infotainment from the state in place of detached investigation. so for a remarkably extended period, the press functioned as a largely docile relay system for what amounted to infotainment that was shaped around and which shaped a pervasive sense of a state of emergency, which in turn generated a context that made the administration's action appear consistent to itself, and which resulted in a wholesale breakdown in the oversight functions of congress. i think this entire frame was and is deeply problematic. but was it illegal? there are actions within this context that the administration undertook which were clearly to my mind over any line in terms of legality. what i expect will happen is that a commission will end up having to focus on those actions. one effect of that might be to normalize the context within which they happened. that would be a mistake. it seems to me that there is something deeply fucked up about the role of the press in the united states now---uncritical lapdogs of the official line when that sells advertising, critical of that line when that sells advertising---wholly problematic in the interim, because the sale of advertising, and not critical reporting, is its primary function. the closed in information model developed piecemeal since the reagan period needs to be unmade. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-15-2009, 05:46 AM	#25 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	dc---i think we're in agreement about the general problems, but approach them from different angles. in principle, i think that the bush period requires some serious reflection. it pushed to its logical conclusions patterns relating to information that were, as i said, put into place under the reagan period and gradually added to. in the information strategy, you can see most of the features that would repeat in the specifically legal questions that either commission would be charged with. to my mind, the fundamental question is: what is a democratic polity in 2008? what role does the dominant media play in shaping the parameters within which that polity operates, by defining issues and by defining the range of "legitimate opinion" about those issues? what characterized this relationship in the period following 9/11/2001? what should be rethought in order to prevent that from happening again? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-18-2009, 03:03 AM	#27 (permalink)
Telluride Browncoat Location: California	Such a "commission" already exists: The Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court's job is to examine laws to ensure that they don't overstep the limits placed on our government by the Constitution. __________________ "I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek