Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Groups on Left, Right Ask Candidates to Reject Bush's Wider Powers
President Bush's drive to expand executive power over surveillance, detention, interrogation and the meaning of new laws has drawn largely ineffectual protests from Congress. But a group of liberals and a handful of prominent conservatives are pressing would-be successors to renounce those powers before they take office.
Both the liberal American Freedom Campaign and the conservative American Freedom Agenda have adopted platforms complaining of administration muscle-flexing on issues ranging from the treatment of prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the Justice Department's threats to prosecute reporters for espionage.
The liberal group also has asked all presidential candidates to sign a pledge of limited executive authority, reading, "We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people's phones and e-mails without court order, and above all we do not give any president unchecked power. I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from attack by any president."
None of the nine Republican candidates has responded. The pledge has been signed by five Democratic hopefuls: Sens. Barack Obama and Chris Dodd, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former Sen. Mike Gravel.
The other three Democratic candidates, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joseph Biden and former Sen. John Edwards, have not signed, but issued promises covering roughly the same ground. Letters from all three included renunciations of torture, wiretapping of U.S. citizens without court approval and imprisonment without judicial review.
The conservative campaign has asked candidates of both parties to endorse its detailed 10-point platform. Only one, Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican with libertarian leanings, has signed it, although Edwards has posted the document on one of his campaign Web sites.
The competing pledge campaigns reflect a degree of bipartisan frustration with political leaders' silence about what their backers see as Bush's effort to tip the government's balance of powers.
Bush acted on his own, without consulting Congress or seeking court approval, when he ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap calls between Americans and suspected foreign terrorists shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He unilaterally established military tribunals to try foreign captives, and his Justice Department rewrote legal rules governing torture to authorize the infliction of intense pain during interrogation.
Bush has also stressed the president's need for secrecy in wartime. He has brushed off congressional demands for internal documents, citing either national security or the importance of obtaining confidential advice. More than any of his predecessors, he has invoked state secrecy to seek dismissal of lawsuits accusing his administration of violating individual rights.
In addition, Bush has challenged Congress' right to limit his actions. In more than 1,000 cases - more than all previous presidents combined - he has issued statements asserting the power to disregard newly signed laws on the grounds that they encroach on presidential authority.
Congress has largely acquiesced, passing laws that ratified the wiretapping program and the military tribunals after their legality was questioned. The Patriot Act, the administration's overhaul of search and detention laws in the wake of Sept. 11, was speedily enacted without public hearings and remains virtually intact.
When lawmakers won Bush's signature in 2005 for a prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment during interrogations, the president quietly issued a signing statement saying he would override the ban when necessary to protect the nation.
Asked about campaigns to promote a limited view of presidential powers, White House spokesman Trey Bohn referred to Bush's statement Oct. 5, after the New York Times reported the Justice Department had authorized harsh interrogation methods by the CIA.
Bush did not expressly deny the Times report, but repeated his insistence that "this government does not torture people." The interrogation methods, he said, are used by "professionals who are trained in this kind of work to protect the American people."
He also said the techniques have been "fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress," a statement disputed by congressional Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco.
Although most of the public criticism of Bush's position has come from the left, the first organized effort to make presidential powers a 2008 campaign issue came from the right.
In unveiling the American Freedom Agenda in March, several veterans of the conservative movement contended Bush was damaging the constitutional structure of checks and balances and laying the groundwork for abuses by future presidents.
"As fellow conservatives, we believe we have a greater responsibility than most to stand up to this particular administration and demand that it respect the checks and balances established by the founding fathers," said the campaign's chairman, Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official under President Ronald Reagan.
Other organizers included David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Richard Viguerie, whose fundraising innovations helped launch the modern conservative movement; and Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia who was a leader in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.
The pledge they circulated to candidates of both parties went beyond disavowals of torture and unauthorized wiretapping. It included a promise to dismantle Bush's military tribunals and halt "extraordinary renditions," in which foreign suspects are abducted by U.S. agents and flown to countries with histories of torturing prisoners.
The pledge also called for a curb on invoking state secrecy to fight information requests from Congress or dismiss lawsuits over government wrongdoing, renunciation of threats to prosecute journalists for espionage when they report classified information, and an end to the use of signing statements to disregard laws.
Fein said any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who won't make a detailed commitment to reverse Bush's policies is tacitly endorsing them. He said the more generally worded language of the liberal campaign pledge doesn't go far enough.
"We think they (candidates) have to be specific," Fein said. "A general statement, 'I'll follow the law,' doesn't mean anything. President Bush could say, 'I'll follow the law.' "
Steve Fox, spokesman for the liberal American Freedom Campaign, acknowledged that the two-sentence "We are Americans" pledge it circulated to candidates in August was subject to varying interpretations.
"We wanted to make it simple," he said. By signing the pledge or submitting their own statements, Fox said, candidates are at least expressing an "intent to reverse the constitutional abuses that have occurred."
The liberal campaign - whose leaders include Wes Boyd, co-founder of the Internet-based activist organization MoveOn.org, and author Naomi Wolf - also has a 10-point manifesto that is virtually identical to the conservative group's. But the liberal group has circulated that statement only to members of the public, with the help of supporting organizations such as MoveOn.org, Amnesty International and the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation.
More than 130,000 signatures have been collected so far on the petitions, which are aimed at Congress as well as presidential hopefuls, Fox said.
Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the need for a campaign to defend constitutional rights should be clear in San Francisco, where federal courts are considering the foundation's suit accusing AT&T of illegally collaborating with the administration's surveillance program. She noted that a former AT&T employee has testified that e-mail traffic was copied and rerouted to the government at the company's office at 611 Folsom St. in San Francisco.
A pledge to curb wiretapping and interrogation abuses may not be ironclad, Cohn said, but it's "one of the ways we as voters can get candidates to say what they stand for, so we can hold them to it once they get into office." Online resources To view the liberal American Freedom Campaign pledge, platform and letters from individual candidates, go to:
www.americanfreedomcampaign.org
To read the conservative American Freedom Agenda's platform, go to:
© 2007 Hearst Communications Inc.
34 Comments so far
Show AllAnd what will Congress do if the new president does not live up to his/her pledge? Impeach? Yeah, sure.
The United States of America's government must be returned to a state of pre-BUsh balance of powers. We are headed for disaster unless that happens. Further, it might be a good idea to get acquainted with Paul Fisher's "We the People" organization and consider its solutions to our current governmental quagmire.
Peace and Freesom, may they survive
anyone who would not sign this, is complicent in treason. does your constitution have any meaning, or is it just a quaint little document to wipe your ass with?
terryb excellent question.It is probably the quaint little toilet paper to wipe with since Bushieboy and Dickieboy now controls a toilet paper company.
Condi seems to think that there is too much power concentrated in the Russian Pesident, but is quite happy to concentrate further power into the President of the USA...as long as it is a Republican President
Here is how it should go.....If anyone will not sign this simple agreement with the American public then the public has the right to NOT vote for any of them. I suggest that they sign in blood.
This is a great "litmus test". Any candidate who won't sign should be exposed through media ads and relentless media attention. And the liberal and conservative groups should co-sponsor this campaign to expose non-acceptance. Let's do what neither Congress nor the judiciary have had the balls to do: expose this power grabbing for what it is.
Canuckchuck quote: "Condi seems to think that there is too much power concentrated in the Russian President, but is quite happy to concentrate further power into the President of the USA…as long as it is a Republican President."
Thank you, Chuck. You hit the nail on the head with that one.
Bush and Cheney must be impeached if a return to honoring our Constitution is to have any meaning.
Basically, if the president and vice-president can break the law with impunity, why should anyone else respect it?
If the rational for President Bush's drive to expand executive power over surveillance, detention, interrogation and the meaning of new laws was part of his war on terrorism it has been counterproductive rather than ineffectual. The number of terrorists we face has gone up, the number of deaths has gone up (American and Iraqi) and Ossama Bin Ladin is still free. Even worse America has lost its the moral leadership of the world.
Can't Americans who who think we need a stronger executive see what their strong executive is doing to our country and the world. As Churchill said democracy is not perfect but it's the best the world has come up with.
Len Zimm
Dump Bush is correct.
Even if the candidates sign the pledge, they can see that the court-appointed president of our country gets away with whatever he wants without Congress following the mandate of the Constitution. Why should they do any differently?
If we really wanted to make some improvement we could go to direct election of President with the second place finisher being the vice President. Secrets would be hard to keep and Senate ties would be broken by the second biggest vote getter.
Popular election would eliminate the electoral games and the vice president would be in effect a shadow government as intended by the founders.
It's useful to remember that just as liberals and progressives can admire and support a candidate for signing pledges drafted by "movements", the opposition can grab those things and make them into regrettable monsters in 30-second ads.
One of our candidates (Dukakis, I think) made a point of being proud he was "a card-carrying member of the ACLU". Didn't turn out too well.
All the organ stops, ALL of them, are going to be pulled out by the conservatives for maximum noise in 2008. It's entirely likely that each and every litmus test forced upon candidates by far left voters WILL
be turned upside down and lied about to conservatives and moderates in ads with ceaseless repetition.
A signature on anything that can be made fun of is potentially poison. We do recall that even a picture of "windsurfing" resulted in great harm to our country from November, 2004, to the present, don't we?
shakker,
What you propose would be one of the greatest decisions this government ever made. However, it's actually sort of "in the works." We cannot easily get RID of the electoral college, but we can get AROUND it. It's called the "National Popular Vote." ( http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ ) Basically, all the states wait until the winner of the popular vote is announced, and then they cast their electoral votes for that.
TO HELL WITH THE CANDIDATES !!I WANT TO REJECT EXECUTIVE POWER !!I DONT KNOW HOW THE REST OF YOU FEEL,BUT I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM HOLDING ANOTHER ELECTION AND VOTING..IF BUSH IS NOT IMPEACHED FIRST !!WE SHOULD ALL BE FED-UP WITH GIVING THE RULING ELITE WHAT THEY DESIRE--OUR VOTES !!!!!!!!!I BELIEVE ALOT OF PEOPLE WOULD FEEL THE SAME !
Dont be fooled by Obama, Edwards, and Clintons promises. Just look at their voting records and you can see they have handed the president all that he has.
Obama funds that war, supported and supports the patriot act.
Edwards gave the president war powers even when he was one of the only senators to see the intelligence documents on the intelligence committe. he knew the president was lieing and said nothing and voted for the war.
Clinton tries to play the dupe "the president fooled me!" yet she votes to declare Iran's army a terrorist organization giving the president the right to pre-emptively strike in his war on terror.
there may be some small effect on future policy, maybe. but its 99.9% hype. only DENNIS KUCINICH has the voting record to prove that he can be trusted. that is what we need to focus on, not "how can we change these corrupted but 'electable' candidates?"
We must get a reading on these issues from the current right supreme court first, before moving forward with such appeals. Otherwise you may just weaken the liberal side and then a conservative returns to office and begins the same assumptions as Bush! Left, be real careful of who you are negotiating with. Is this minority congress the ones to get such promises from, or someone else? [courts]
What hokum. I'm not particularly worried about Dennis Kucinich becoming a power mad autocrat. The ruthless poppinjay waiting to carry on the Bush legacy already knows all he needs to know from our eight year tutorial in what an American king can and can not do, ie. just about anything he pleases, agreement or no agreement, by dint of assured acquiescence. There is a new George Bush under every rock in Texas, and unless some modern equivalent of the guillotine emerges from this torpid herd I'm afraid he will be presiding over us soon.
The real litmus test isn't whether they sign a non-binding statement--Bush has pretended to support the same principles--but whether they act now. The best predictor of future behavior is past and present behavior, and that's not too reassuring. Of course all of the leading Republican candidates are neo-fascists, but the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary W. Clinton, is also a crypto-neocon and Bush enabler. Congress needs to drastically amend the USAPATRIOT and Military Commissions Acts NOW!
The only reason to either propose or to sign on to such platforms is to deny the 800-lb. gorilla in the room. First, the rogue administration and their abuses must be repudiated and held to account. This is what's on our plates, folks. It may look distasteful, but it's nothing compared to what will follow if it's not cleaned up. As others have pointed out, verbal commitments, even written ones, are of no use if we lack the collective will to draw and hold the line.
how can anyone 'give'their vote to a system that has so failed its people,that it can not even comply with the will(the proper owners of this government,in case you forgot)of the people and impeach the genocidal monster that drives it to hell !!i like dennis kucinich and up until yesterday,was going to vote for him...but now i realize that my conscience will not allow me to GIFT anyone with my vote and my conscience...unless they IMPEACH the bastard BEFORE their crooked election !!!!
Conservatives have fucked things up so bad that they see that their more liberal cons will probably win so they reject wider powers to stop liberals from passing laws. Real liberals are democratic and are against power concentration so they too reject wider powers. A net plus for the cons.
Might just as well ask an addict to stop the desire. I think we have all outgrown the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. This lust for power destroys all.
I'm glad these pledges are out there as a litmus test, but they are useful for something else. They are clearly desperate gestures on the part of groups that care about the law and the Constitution to make up for Congress' failure to respect the law and the Constitution. We wouldn't need these pledges if Congress applied the law and began impeachment hearings. The pledges are little "band-aids" applied to our bleeding democracy--only Congress holds the tourniquet and refuses to use it (nice metaphor, right?).
It is so sad that everyone is desperately trying to make up for the failure of Congress to respect the law, in any way possible (these pledges, town hall meetings, petitions for impeachment, etc.). The "people" are in the weird position of begging Congress to respect the law. But we have to remember, it is the "people" who give Congress their authority. Isn't it possible in some way for us to take their authority away, given their failure?
AlexLawyer
==The best predictor of future behavior is past and present behavior...==
Absolutely true. And don't we all notice that the candidates haven't voluntarily brought this critical factor to the front in their campaigns and must be asked about it? THEY're the ones who gave Bush the go-ahead, so why would anybody but an idiot believe they'll voluntarily reject the power they gave Bush?
But even more alarming, not one of the candidates has presented America's Constitutional crisis as something they intend to remedy, much less offered a plan for its restoration. That would do a lot to "fix" the destruction of America that GW Bush has so criminally wrought. It has many parts and ramifications in the practical realm, but if that were a candidate's central platform, I'd vote for him/her in a minute. Off the top of my head, here are a few wrongs that could be righted:
=====
No more war or attacks on other countries without a Congressional declaration of war.
No more communications surveillance on Americans without a specific cause listed in a warrant.
No more Patriot Act.
No more violations of the Geneva Conventions and a recommitment to the human rights principles contained in all international law. No torture, no renditions, Guantanamo detainees either tried in open court or released, restoration of habeas corpus.
No more faith-based initiatives or taxpayer money to religious groups. Loss of tax exempt status for all religious groups that campaign for or against candidates of any party.
No more vouchers for religious schools.
A Constitutional litmus test for all Supreme Court Justice nominations, not a religious or political one.
Campaign finance reform.
=====
The late great Molly Ivins graphically described the fix we're in:
==You cannot keep a dog that kills chickens, no matter how fine a dog it is otherwise.
My friend John Henry Faulk always said the way to break a dog of that habit is to take one of the chickens the dog has killed and wire the thing around the dog's neck, good and strong. And leave it there until that dead chicken stinks so bad the dog won't be able to stand himself. You leave it on there until the last little bit of flesh rots and falls off, and that dog won't kill chickens again.
The Bush Administration is going to be wired around the neck of the American people for four more years, long enough for the stench to sicken everybody. It should cure the country of electing Republicans.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1112-24.htm
==
PS. Molly didn't live to see the Democrats supporting the Bush agenda when they had majorities in both houses. She might still use the chicken-round-the-dog's-neck to describe American disgust, but no doubt she'd include the Democrats who've betrayed us in her last sentence above.
What are you guys talking about, and why should they sign a piece of worthless paper that in effect says, yes, we promise to abide by the Constitution?
When elected, they swear to protect the Constitution. That should be sufficient. The remedy is not to sign a piece of crap, but To IMPEACH Bush who has violated his oath of office and the Constitution.
The thing is, Bush, Cheney, and others in the administration, aided by self-indulgent media nobodies, have broken innumerable laws, trashed The US Constitution, The Bill Of Rights, The Geneva Convention . . . committed crimes again humanity . . . caused the deaths of well over a million mostly innocent people . . . Their crimes would fill several volumes, and yet the majority in Congress refuse to hold them accountable, and have, in consequence, broken the law.
If any of the Democrat 'lesser of two evils' running for President think the majority is going to vote for them, let alone VOTE, I think they're in for a big surprize. Hillary makes me sick, Obama to a lesser degree; Edwards I no longer trust.
All we can do is sign petitions (knowing full well they will be ignored . . . or will respond with 'we don't have enough votes to impeach' . . .). I'm sick of media deciding who is to be included in the running, and instructing viewers who to vote for. The debates are absurd.
A debate is only a debate if those debating debate each other without the interference of a media schmuck calling the shots, and limiting responses to a half minute here, a few remaining seconds there . . . Let the debate start at a specific hour and run until the candidates are exhausted or leave the stage in shame. Chances are the only two remaining would be Gravel and Kucinich.
If congressional reps would keep abreast of concerns and opinions shared on Common Dreams they might begin taking a stand.
That's right, Dump Bush, and why isn't the Big Media noticing that the contempt for the law displayed by the White House might filter down and cause equal contempt for the law by average people, especially kids? The mother of an 8-year-old told me she was shocked when she caught her daughter lying and asked her why she lied when she knew it was wrong. "If it's so wrong, how come the president does it, Mom?" was the kid's reply. Thanks, Mr. Bush.
Shakker, I agree we should return to having the candidate who comes in second serve as Vice President, as they did in the early days of the Republic. It would definitely cut down on much of the chicanery we've seen, and there would be no Dick Cheney and likely no war in Iraq.
Incidentally, the only reason we are saddled with the cumbersome and unfair Electoral College system, unique in the world, is due to the slave-owning South prior to the American Civil War. In the late 18th century, in order to keep the nation together to form the Continental Congress, both to oppose the British and later to create the United States, the North needed the Southern colonies and the Southerners knew that the more heavily populated North would vote to get rid of slavery. In a unpalatable but necessary compromise, the founders installed the Electoral College system so that the sparsely-populated South could counter-balance the populous North. They even 'liberally' allowed black slaves who couldn't vote to be counted as three-fourths of a person for the purposes of the census, which then determined the number of electoral votes from a state. That's how the still relatively small populations of Southern states continue to hold such power in Congress. It's insane that states like Alabama and Mississipi could have only three residents each, and yet still have a Congressional representative, two US Senators, and three votes per state in the Electoral College, but it's true. The Electoral College system should have been abandoned when slavery was outlawed in this country.
impeach the media!
Paul Fisher said:
" A mechanism for the people that was beyond the control of the Pelosi Congress, not subject to the Robert's Court, and over the head of King George's Administration."
That's a damn good suggestion Mr Paul Fisher, except that one basic and essential component is missing: A citizenry that is informed, vigilant, concerned, and active. And if we already had that, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today, would we? When a few hundred supposedly educated people in Congress cannot reach a consensus to IMPEACH Bush, how do you expect 300 million people of the present stock and caliber do it? The only mechanism that would meet your definition is revolution---beyond the control of all, except the people.
Saila,
I agree that what I propose is a tall order to be sure. I disagree, however, on your suggestion that the only mechanism is revolution.
If by revolution, you mean violence, then I say it would not bring the end desired, but instead create justification in the eyes of a conditioned populace for a militant police response.
If however you a revolution in tactics and strategy, then I say yeah! That's what I am talking about.
Seriously, a unified people's movement organizing, electing delegates, and participating in regional, state and national Conventions has the potential of kindling the sort of support that people in this country felt moved to offer following 9/11.
A campaign that frames itself not on the issue of Constitutional law, but on the defense of what it means to be an American. I am talking about the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence. This is just the sort of fundamental cause that could galvanize a true people's movement, much like what this country had during the Civil Rights struggle.
Paul Fisher has a good idea for a Second Constitutional Convention and, in fact, in small ways it's already happening. Look at the towns around the country that passed resolutions to impeach Bush and Cheney, and that the majority of Americans have turned against Bush and the Republicans, certainly not due to the GOP flag-wavers in the Big Media.
In 1900, it was considered impossible by most 'experts' that women would ever get the vote; in 1928, the Wall Street Journal said that, due to the booming economy, the Republicans would control the White House for generations to come; in 1945, conventional wisdom said that segregation in the South would never end -- it was too well-entrenched and no political party would address the issue. In 1968, I was told that no collection of hippie freaks and radical leftists would bring an end to the Vietnam War; in 1972, I was assured Nixon would never leave office because of Watergate.
Stranger things have happened, and I think we are entering a period where America wants a progressive government, just as they did in 1932 when FDR was elected. Politicians will respond when enough of them see what's going on in the country, and so will corporations.
They can pledge and promise all they please, but what will they do, in real time, when one of the cloak-and-dagger types is sitting in the Oval Office, briefing the President, "Mr. President we believe a terrorist attack on American interests is imminent. We can intercept the perpetrators if you will allow us to gather the requisite information from known and unknown collaborators." Which one of the candidates would have the courage of his/her convictions at that critical moment? Maybe Gravel, Kucininch or Dodd. Certainly, not the moneyed candidates.