Why We Have to Look Back

Why We Have to Look Back
Washington Post
By John Conyers Jr.
Friday, January 16, 2009; A19

This week, I released "Reining in the Imperial Presidency," a 486-page report detailing the abuses and excesses of the Bush administration and recommending steps to address them. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. popularized the term "imperial presidency" in the 1970s to describe an executive who had assumed more power than the Constitution allows and circumvented the checks and balances fundamental to our three-branch system of government. Until recently, the Nixon administration seemed to represent a singular embodiment of the idea. Unfortunately, it is clear that the threat of the imperial presidency lives on and, indeed, reached new heights under George W. Bush.

As this report documents, there was the administration's contrived drive to a needless war of aggression with Iraq, based on manipulated intelligence and facts that were "fixed around the policy." There was its politicization of the Justice Department; unconscionable and possibly illegal policies on detention, interrogation and extraordinary rendition; warrantless wiretaps of American citizens; the ravaging of our regulatory system and the use of signing statements to override the laws of the land; and the intimidation and silencing of critics and whistle-blowers who dared to tell fellow citizens what was being done in their name. And all of this was hidden behind an unprecedented veil of secrecy and outlandish claims of privilege.

I understand that many feel we should just move on. They worry that addressing these actions by the Bush administration will divert precious energy from the serious challenges facing our nation. I understand the power of that impulse. Indeed, I want to move on as well -- there are so many things that I would rather work on than further review of Bush's presidency. But in my view it would not be responsible to start our journey forward without first knowing exactly where we are.

We cannot rebuild the appropriate balance between the branches of government without fully understanding how that relationship has been distorted. Likewise, we cannot set an appropriate baseline for future presidential conduct without documenting and correcting the presidential excesses that have just occurred. After the Nixon imperial presidency, critical reviews such as the Church and Pike committees led to fundamental reforms that have served our nation well. Comparable steps are needed to begin the process of reining in the legacy of the Bush imperial presidency. I consider these three points crucial:

First, Congress should continue to pursue its document requests and subpoenas that were stonewalled under President Bush. Doing so will make clear that no executive can forever hide its misdeeds from the public.

Second, Congress should create an independent blue-ribbon panel or similar body to investigate a host of previously unreviewable activities of the Bush administration, including its detention, interrogation and surveillance programs. Only by chronicling and confronting the past in a comprehensive, bipartisan fashion can we reclaim our moral authority and establish a credible path forward to meet the complex challenges of a post-Sept. 11 world.

Third, the new administration should conduct an independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities. Just this week, in the pages of this newspaper, a Guantanamo Bay official acknowledged that a suspect there had been "tortured" -- her exact word -- in apparent violation of the law. The law is the law, and, if criminal conduct occurred, those responsible -- particularly those who ordered and approved the violations -- must be held accountable.

Some day, there is bound to be another national security crisis in America. A future president will face the same fear and uncertainty that we did after Sept. 11, 2001, and will feel the same temptation to believe that the ends justify the means -- temptation that drew our nation over to the "dark side" under the leadership of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. If those temptations are to be resisted -- if we are to face new threats in a manner that keeps faith with our values and strengthens rather than diminishes our authority around the world -- we must fully learn the lessons of our recent past.

The writer, a Democrat, represents Michigan's 14th District in the U.S. House and is chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

World Rejects Torture, U.S. more equivocal

Almost 6 in 10 people around the world reject the use of torture in all instances, according to the latest survey from WorldPublicOpinion.org. Only slightly more than one-quarter of respondents expressed a willingness to accept some torture under the hypothetically dubious, extremely unlikely, and illegal event that torturing a suspect might lead to "saving lives."

As President Bush continues to hide from fresh charges by current and former military officials that he and other top administration officials ordered torture and illegal mistreatment at U.S. operated prison camps (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc.), the latest poll data shows much of the rest of the world is well in advance of him.

In a recent report by the Physicians for Human Rights, Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who investigated the events at Abu Ghraib, wrote last week: "there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Mexico, Spain, France, Great Britain, Palestinian Territories, China, and Indonesia expressed the greatest unequivocal opposition to torture with all higher than average scores, ranging from 61% opposition to 82%, according to the survey.

Turkey, South Korea, the U.S., and Nigeria showed the highest numbers of support for generally allowing torture. The U.S. fell in below the global average in unequivocal opposition.

Human Rights Groups Call for Rumsfeld's Detention in France

Filing a complaint in a French court which alleges the former US Secretary of Defense authorized torture at U.S.-run detention centers in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, several US-based and international human rights groups called on French authorities today to detain Donald Rumsfeld during his visit to that country.

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) along with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), and the French League for Human Rights (LDH) filed the complaint with the Paris prosecutor's office before the “Court of First Instance.”

According to the press release of the FIDH:

“The filing of this French case against Rumsfeld demonstrates that we will not rest until those U.S. officials involved in the torture program are brought to justice. Rumsfeld must understand that he has no place to hide. A torturer is an enemy of all humankind,” said CCR President Michael Ratner.

“France is under the obligation to investigate and prosecute Rumsfeld’s accountability for crimes of torture in Guantanamo and Iraq. France has no choice but to open an investigation if an alleged torturer is on its territory. I hope that the fight against impunity will not be sacrificed in the name of politics. We call on France to refuse to be a safe haven for criminals.” said FIDH President Souhayr Belhassen.

“We want to combat impunity and therefore demand a judicial investigation and a criminal prosecution wherever there is jurisdiction over the torture incidents,” said ECCHR General Secretary Wolfgang Kaleck.

"The impunity of a criminal government is always intolerable. That the US is the hyperpower of the moment and especially that it is a democracy makes the impunity of Donald Rumsfield even more unbearable than that of an Hissène Habré or a Radovan Karadzic" announced Jean-Pierre Dubois, LDH President.

"We know that we can't get him into prison right now, but it would be great to make sure that he couldn't safely leave the U.S. anymore," Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told the media.

The CCR and FIDH have already filed suits in Germany in 2004 and 2006 in a bid to have Rumsfeld tried for rights abuses.

Bush Vetoes Children's Health

Behind closed doors and with the TV cameras off, Bush just vetoed the S-CHIP bill. With one stroke of his pen, he said tax cuts for the rich, loopholes for big oil, and the war on Iraq based on lies are matter more than children who need shots, their teeth fixed, expensive medicines for chronic illnesses like asthma, diabetes, or allergies.

Bush, in the name of his discredited and despicable conservative ideology, told America what his values are: lucrative private contracts for Blackwater without oversight to kill Iraqis, torture at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and spying on your phone calls rank higher in importance than making sure that working families whose children need to have tubes inserted in their ears to prevent recurring infections or operations to fix their eyesight can afford to do so.

With a stroke of his pen, he said to the children of working families, you don't count in my book, and I don't care about your future.

Bush also lied – surprise, surprise. He explained that he opposed the $5 billion dollar a year S-CHIP bill because he believes in fiscal responsibility. Lie. Over his presidency he has signed spending bill after spending bill paid for with debt mounted on the backs of the very children he scorned today with his veto. The amount he (abetted by the previous Republican-controlled Congress) personally has added to the national debt is in the trillions.

He also called the S-CHIP bill, supported by right-wing members of Congress, private insurance lobbyist, medical associations, and liberal children's advocates alike, was a kind of creeping socialism.

His gesture, by vetoing children's health, is one of the most spiteful, small and despicable acts I can imagine. But then again he led us into a war with lies and now as many as 1 million Iraqis have lost their lives.

Republicans (and any Democrats) who vote to support the president's veto should lose their jobs in 2008. They do not represent America or any version of "family values" and cannot be relied on to care for our future: our children.