So I’ve been taking a break from political writing since the election, but can’t stand by and not say something about this. In an interview with ABC News on Monday, Dick Cheney admitted to war crimes. Not in a roundabout way, not trying to sugarcoat it, and not in a way that is disputable. It was a matter of fact, simple admission that waterboarding happened and that he approved of it.
So what’s the big deal? Let me digress for a minute to bring up a bit of history. I’m going to quote the recent Republican nomination from president, a POW himself, John McCain (Thursday, November 29th, 2007 in a campaign event in St. Petersburg): “… following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding.” That’s right, we’ve actually hung people - within Dick Cheney’s lifetime - for waterboarding. And he just admitted to it. Let me say that again. A sitting Vice President just went on national TV and admitted to a crime that we as a country have killed people for committing.
So where is the outrage? Sure they’re gone in a couple of weeks, but if this remains unpunished it sets a precedent that any crime committed by a president or vice president is legal as long as they say it is. To quote another politician, “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”. Those famous words by Dick Nixon, about his now almost adorable break-in to a Democratic Headquarters in Washington, DC, are currently being used by one of our leaders in favor of illegally torturing someone in the same manner as was used in the Spanish Inquisition.
So what can we do? Well, just because he is leaving office does not mean that he is no longer accountable for his crimes. He is still prosecutable for his actions and needs to be made an example of. We are a country of laws and everyone must obey them. If we are to believe that no one is above the law, our laws must be applicable from the top down. Please take a minute and write your representative. Let them know that you’re outraged. Tell them that you want Dick Cheney held accountable. Tell them that if they really want to show that they stand for change, this would be an excellent place to start.
Write your representative from the Senate
Write your representative from the House
Showing posts with label bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bush. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Here Lies Misinformation
Misinformation - to give false or misleading information to. (dictionary.com)
Lie - an inaccurate or false statement. (dictionary.com)
Misinformation sounds more professional, more grown-up, so maybe that is why those in the political world try to use it. A lie is something that children do. Children lie, adults give misinformation. Misinformation is more complex, it involves nuance and delicately - something a child could never understand. So to better understand the subtle differences between a lie and misinformation, I’ve prepared the following example:
Example of Misinformation:
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman”
Example of a Lie:
“I did not eat the last cookie”
Example of Misinformation:
“Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction and is an imminent threat to the United States”
Example of a Lie:
“I don’t know who broke your vase. Maybe it was Johnny”
Example of Misinformation:
“I didn’t lie, I just gave misinformation”
Example of a Lie:
“I didn’t lie, I just gave misinformation”
So when someone tells you that what they told you was misinformation, you’ll now know the difference.
Lie - an inaccurate or false statement. (dictionary.com)
Misinformation sounds more professional, more grown-up, so maybe that is why those in the political world try to use it. A lie is something that children do. Children lie, adults give misinformation. Misinformation is more complex, it involves nuance and delicately - something a child could never understand. So to better understand the subtle differences between a lie and misinformation, I’ve prepared the following example:
Example of Misinformation:
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman”
Example of a Lie:
“I did not eat the last cookie”
Example of Misinformation:
“Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction and is an imminent threat to the United States”
Example of a Lie:
“I don’t know who broke your vase. Maybe it was Johnny”
Example of Misinformation:
“I didn’t lie, I just gave misinformation”
Example of a Lie:
“I didn’t lie, I just gave misinformation”
So when someone tells you that what they told you was misinformation, you’ll now know the difference.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Bush Trying to Give Iraq Gov Power over US Military
What is happening right now in Iraq is both new and different. New, because it is a possible end to the war and different because it ignores our own Constitution. The article below, from Time Magazine, explains how the president is giving over power of the US Military to the Iraq Government. Let me say that again, our Commander in Chief is giving over power of the most powerful military in the world to Iraq. Fighting, strategy, and yes even funding will be controlled by the Iraq Government. Worse than that, he is trying to do it without consulting either the American people or the Senate.
Please read the article and contact your local Representative. Our Constitution, its checks and balances, and our system of government is too valuable to be given away some secretly and callously.
Contact your local Senator here
Contact your local House Representative here
What Bush Will Surrender in Iraq
By Bruce Ackerman & Oona Hathway
Thu Sep 11, 2:00 PM ET
Determined to shape his own legacy in Iraq, President Bush has cut Congress out of his negotiations with the Maliki government. Despite repeated requests, the Administration has refused to share with congressional committees the text of its negotiating draft, even on a confidential basis. But elements of the proposals under negotiation have steadily leaked out from the Iraqi side, and now an Arabic-language newspaper, Asharq Al-Awsat, has published what it says is the full draft agreement.
The draft agreement published by Asharq Al-Awsat would clearly contravene the U.S. Constitution. It will not be a treaty, requiring the consent of two-thirds of the Senate, or a congressional-executive agreement, requiring the approval of both houses of Congress. Instead, the President asserts the power, as commander in chief, to commit the nation to his deal with Iraq without seeking the consent of the legislative branch. The provisions of the published text, however, decisively refute his claim to unilateral authority.
The breadth of the President's powers as commander in chief is one of the most controversial issues in constitutional law. Nevertheless, there is one point on which everybody agrees: The President can't unilaterally surrender his command over the military to somebody else, and tell the troops to treat this outsider as commander-in-chief. The authority he has as commander-in-chief is not his to transfer.
The published draft agreement violates this bedrock principle by creating a joint U.S.-Iraq committee and giving it, not the President, the authority to coordinate military operations, to resolve operational disputes, and even to "determine the tasks and level of the troops that will focus on training and supporting Iraqi security forces." The agreement creates only one exception: American troops can act unilaterally in self-defense without obtaining the committee's permission.
The constitutional violation is plain: The agreement would cede the President's authority over U.S. forces in the field to a committee, on which the Iraqis would have veto power.
All this may or may not make sense, but it is up to Congress to decide. There have been occasions when foreigners have been given some control over American troops in connection with NATO and U.N. peacekeeping operations. But these delegations of command authority occurred under treaties ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, not by presidential fiat. Worse still, the agreement would govern military relationships well into the next administration. President Bush is proposing to give away not only his own powers as commander-in-chief, but also those of his successor.
The published draft agreement also usurps congressional power over the Treasury. It obligates the United States to pay for the construction and modification of military installations that will revert to Iraqi ownership when our troops leave. This is an open-ended commitment that goes beyond the funds already appropriated by Congress. By taking this step, the President seeks to remove the most fundamental check on the abuse of executive power - the power of the purse.
The reason that the questions of authority over future U.S. military operations in Iraq has not received the attention it deserves is simple: The Administration has cut Congress and the American people out of the loop. The media discussion of the negotiations between the Iraqi and U.S. governments, fueled only by leaks, has focused on more sensational topics such as a timetable for withdrawal of our troops, and the Maliki government's efforts to prosecute American contractors for crimes committed on Iraqi soil. These are important matters, which should also be submitted for congressional approval, but the precedents set by the President's unilateral use of power will have greater long-term consequences.
It is past time for the President to provide Congress with a copy of the draft agreement, and ask for its consent. Senators and Representatives should not be forced to rely on translations from foreign newspapers to learn what their government is up to; there should be no secret deals on the most important issues facing America.
As chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden, has co-sponsored legislation demanding that the Administration submit the Iraq agreement for congressional approval. Now that he is the Democratic nominee for Vice President, he should take the initiative and reach out to Senator John McCain, who understands perfectly the questions of principle at stake. Both Democratic and Republican candidates should join together to make it clear that, whoever wins the election, the next President will put the Constitution first in his dealings with Congress.
Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway are professors of law, at Yale and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively.Time.com
Please read the article and contact your local Representative. Our Constitution, its checks and balances, and our system of government is too valuable to be given away some secretly and callously.
Contact your local Senator here
Contact your local House Representative here
What Bush Will Surrender in Iraq
By Bruce Ackerman & Oona Hathway
Thu Sep 11, 2:00 PM ET
Determined to shape his own legacy in Iraq, President Bush has cut Congress out of his negotiations with the Maliki government. Despite repeated requests, the Administration has refused to share with congressional committees the text of its negotiating draft, even on a confidential basis. But elements of the proposals under negotiation have steadily leaked out from the Iraqi side, and now an Arabic-language newspaper, Asharq Al-Awsat, has published what it says is the full draft agreement.
The draft agreement published by Asharq Al-Awsat would clearly contravene the U.S. Constitution. It will not be a treaty, requiring the consent of two-thirds of the Senate, or a congressional-executive agreement, requiring the approval of both houses of Congress. Instead, the President asserts the power, as commander in chief, to commit the nation to his deal with Iraq without seeking the consent of the legislative branch. The provisions of the published text, however, decisively refute his claim to unilateral authority.
The breadth of the President's powers as commander in chief is one of the most controversial issues in constitutional law. Nevertheless, there is one point on which everybody agrees: The President can't unilaterally surrender his command over the military to somebody else, and tell the troops to treat this outsider as commander-in-chief. The authority he has as commander-in-chief is not his to transfer.
The published draft agreement violates this bedrock principle by creating a joint U.S.-Iraq committee and giving it, not the President, the authority to coordinate military operations, to resolve operational disputes, and even to "determine the tasks and level of the troops that will focus on training and supporting Iraqi security forces." The agreement creates only one exception: American troops can act unilaterally in self-defense without obtaining the committee's permission.
The constitutional violation is plain: The agreement would cede the President's authority over U.S. forces in the field to a committee, on which the Iraqis would have veto power.
All this may or may not make sense, but it is up to Congress to decide. There have been occasions when foreigners have been given some control over American troops in connection with NATO and U.N. peacekeeping operations. But these delegations of command authority occurred under treaties ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, not by presidential fiat. Worse still, the agreement would govern military relationships well into the next administration. President Bush is proposing to give away not only his own powers as commander-in-chief, but also those of his successor.
The published draft agreement also usurps congressional power over the Treasury. It obligates the United States to pay for the construction and modification of military installations that will revert to Iraqi ownership when our troops leave. This is an open-ended commitment that goes beyond the funds already appropriated by Congress. By taking this step, the President seeks to remove the most fundamental check on the abuse of executive power - the power of the purse.
The reason that the questions of authority over future U.S. military operations in Iraq has not received the attention it deserves is simple: The Administration has cut Congress and the American people out of the loop. The media discussion of the negotiations between the Iraqi and U.S. governments, fueled only by leaks, has focused on more sensational topics such as a timetable for withdrawal of our troops, and the Maliki government's efforts to prosecute American contractors for crimes committed on Iraqi soil. These are important matters, which should also be submitted for congressional approval, but the precedents set by the President's unilateral use of power will have greater long-term consequences.
It is past time for the President to provide Congress with a copy of the draft agreement, and ask for its consent. Senators and Representatives should not be forced to rely on translations from foreign newspapers to learn what their government is up to; there should be no secret deals on the most important issues facing America.
As chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden, has co-sponsored legislation demanding that the Administration submit the Iraq agreement for congressional approval. Now that he is the Democratic nominee for Vice President, he should take the initiative and reach out to Senator John McCain, who understands perfectly the questions of principle at stake. Both Democratic and Republican candidates should join together to make it clear that, whoever wins the election, the next President will put the Constitution first in his dealings with Congress.
Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway are professors of law, at Yale and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively.Time.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
