The Congress is supposed to be a deliberative body, but deliberation was nowhere in sight on Friday, June 20. On that day, only 15 minutes were given to members of the House of Representatives to identify problems with H.R. 6304, the bill that unconstitutionally nullifies core provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Considering that the bill had been introduced to the House only 24 hours before, there was hardly enough time for members of the House to read the bill, making matters bad enough. But over and over, those who voiced dissent against H.R. 6304 were interrupted before they could finish their very brief remarks.
Consider the remarks of Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey, or at least as much of his remarks as he was able to spurt out before being shoved aside:
Unfortunately, the negotiators who brought this to the floor bought into the flawed assumptions of the Bush administration that because we live in a dangerous world, we must now redefine the Fourth Amendment and thus the fundamental relationship between the government and its people.
If this bill becomes law it will perhaps be the only lasting legacy of the Bush-Cheney administration’s overhaul of national security policy: a congressionally-blessed distortion of congressional checks and balances. It permits massive warrantless surveillance in the absence of any standard for defining how communications of innocent Americans will be protected — A fishing expedition approach to intelligence that we know will not make Americans more safe.
Its court review provisions are weak and narrowly defined. Now, I know some of those who negotiated this bill say some court review is better than no court review; that’s only true if the judge’s hands aren’t tied in the court review process. They are in this bill. There’s a fundamental American principle that those who search, seize, intercept and detain should not be the ones who decide who are the bad guys….
I imagine that Rep. Holt would have concluded by saying something like:
But this bill does just that. H.R. 6304 removes from the judiciary the ability to review the Attorney General’s determination of cause to search and seize the electronic communications and physical property of foreigners and citizens alike. If this bill passes, the Attorney General will determine whether the Attorney General’s determination is correct. It is Kafkaesque in its circular bureaucratic logic. It is a slap in the face to the principle of checks and balances. It is an invitation to the abuse of power. And that is why I intend to vote against this bill.
I imagine that, but in actuality I have no idea how Rep. Holt intended to finish, because Rep. Holt was not allowed to even complete his thought. Instead, he was interrupted by a supporter of H.R. 6304 who spoke:
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California…
This was an instance of serious disrespect to Rush Holt, to the integrity of the Congress, and to the American concept of deliberative democracy. But more than that, it was an indication that those who shoved H.R. 6304 through the Congress were trying to keep something about the bill hidden and unspoken. Read the bill to find what a majority of Congress tried to hide.
On Friday, hoping that the story would die away with the distractions of a warm and sunny springtime weekend, George W. Bush admitted that he approved the use of torture techniques such as waterboarding.
That action was a blatant violation of the War Crimes Act, the Geneva Conventions, the Anti-Torture Act and other federal laws. It was a war crime. It is was a high crime.
Over the weekend, calls for a special prosecutor have increased. A special prosecutor would investigate top White House officials, including President Bush, to determine the facts about their role in the organization and implementation of torture. The prosecutor would have the power to demand information and issue subpoenas for White House officials, including the President, to testify under oath. If the White House obstructed the investigation, that in itself would be grounds for impeachment and charges of contempt of Congress.
The Seattle Post Intelligencer joined the call for the appointment of a special prosecutor by Congress over the weekend, saying, “Congress cannot look the other way; it must demand an independent investigation and independent prosecutor.”
Unfortunately, the Seattle PI is wrong. Congress has proven that it is all too adept in looking the other way.
“Significant questions have been raised about Mr. Clemens’ truthfulness,” said Congressman Henry Waxman, with an air of gravity.
About what was Roger Clemens truthfulness in question? About how he plays baseball.
The truthfulness of George W. Bush, on the other hand, has been in question for years on topics like sending America into an unnecessary war, obstructing legal investigations, destroying criminal evidence, violating the Constitution, torturing prisoners, spying against Americans, and on and on.
So, who is Congress investigating? Roger Clemens, of course. This is pathetic. Pardon me, Representative Waxman, if I don’t stand up and applaud your courage for taking on a baseball player.
In a year of profound disappointment for Democrats in the Democratically-controlled Congress which has largely failed to live up to the expectations of the 2006 election, yesterday’s vote may have been the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
The Democrats in the House of Representatives were split, 135 to 86, on a vote about whether to kill a resolution, introduced by Dennis Kucinich, to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. While many Democrats voted in favor of keeping the resolution active, a larger number, still too afraid to stand up to the Bush White House.
The motion to table the resolution failed, nonetheless. It’s this kind of move, however, protecting Dick Cheney from accountability to the law, that has driven the approval rating of Congress to an astounding low point of just 14 percent.
Among those who voted to kill the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney were many congressional Democrats who were elected for the first time in 2006. Among those was Joe Sestak, representing the 7th district of Pennsylvania. Consider the comment of one former Sestak supporter, after yesterday’s impeachment vote:
“Joe Sestak (D-PA) campaigned, after a lot of bragging about how he was a brave Admiral, went on to promise that he, Admiral Sestak, would get us out of Iraq by the end of the year (2007). So we folk in his district vote out Republican Curt Weldon, who was a long-time House member. So, what’s the first thing Sestak does? He votes to satisfy Bush’s craving for more money to continue his war. We suspect he will probably continue to support Bush’s whining for more cash to pump (along with blood) into that Middle East religious cesspool. As to “impeachment” — He seems terrified of even the word! Lordy! I suppose the only thing about him to be happy about is he is not tugging at the wheel of some gunboat. We are looking forward to his final retirement.”
In New York State, another voter looks at Mike Arcuri’s vote against impeachment, and wonders, “Will progressive, pro-impeachment Democrats take this kick in the ribs from Congressman Arcuri, as they’ve taken kicks from him before?”
One year ago, no one would have predicted that a new, Democratic Congress could have gotten an approval rating even lower than the previous, Republican Congress. Congressional Democrats ought not to take their majority for grants.
Dennis Kucinich announced last night that he will attempt to force a vote on the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. Kucinich will make a formal motion, on a point of personal privilege, to impeach Cheney some time before Thanksgiving.
So far, no mainstream news organization is reporting on this development. Is that due to a neglect on the part of the mainstream news media, or a neglect on the part of the staff of Dennis Kucinich? We’ll have to wait and see if anyone reports on this at all.
In the meantime, if you support the impeachment of Dick Cheney, then you can call your representative in Congress to indicate that you support the impeachment motion to come, and expect a vote in favor.
For a second consecutive day, GOP Senate leaders stepped in, issuing a statement that said Craig had “agreed to comply with leadership’s request” to temporarily give up his posts on important committees. He has been the top Republican on the Veterans Affairs Committee as well as on subcommittees for two other panels.
“This is not a decision we take lightly, but we believe this is in the best interest of the Senate until this situation is resolved by the ethics committee,” said the statement, issued in the name of Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the party leader, and others.
On Tuesday, the leaders jumped in ahead of Craig’s appearance before television cameras in Idaho to announce they had asked the ethics committee to look into the case.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said, “We are disappointed in the matter,” without specifying exactly what was causing the discomfort.
He said he hoped the ethics committee would do its work swiftly, “as that would be in the best interests of the Senate and the people of Idaho.”…
In an interview with The Associated Press, Hoekstra called Craig’s explanations “not credible.”
“I think it’s important for Republicans to step out right now and say, ‘No, this behavior is not going to be tolerated,”‘ he said.
[Rep. Peter] Hoekstra, a conservative from western Michigan, said he reached his decision on his own and had not consulted with party leaders.
“It’s not a judgment on gay rights or anything like that. This is about leadership and setting a standard that the American people and your colleagues in the Republican Party can feel good about.”
Oh, good. So it’s not because Larry Craig might be GAY. No, no, no!, it’s all because he did wrong. And apparently, the Republican standard of “wrong” is when you play footsie with someone.
What is going on inside the head of California Senator Dianne Feinstein? I mean that question seriously. I simply cannot understand why Senator Feinstein would stand in Senate chambers and declare in one moment,
I spent all afternoon on the McConnell bill and am just beginning to understand the subtleties in it and the others laws that come into play…
and then in the next moment cast a YES vote on the bill? This was a consequential bill about spying on people without a warrant. It merited consideration. If Senator Feinstein had switched her vote, the measure couldn’t have gained cloture — and then there would have been time for debate and consideration. Any senator can delay a bill for a time. Why didn’t Senator Feinstein take the time to put the breaks on the inaptly-named “Protect America Act” and think about it a little bit more? Does Senator Feinstein not care enough about this country to get it right?
I am flabbergasted. Simply flabbergasted. Dianne Feinstein, you owe the nation an explanation.
Buzzflash loves to hit hard at Republicans in Congress, but when it comes to the Democrats, they pitch nice and slow.
Example: In a recent article about a conflict between Henry Waxman and Condoleeza Rice, Buzzflash starts out with the statement, “There’s a reason why we call Rep. Henry Waxman the ‘bulldog.’” Sounds like fighting words, right? So, what’s the reason that Buzzflash calls Henry Waxman a bulldog?
Well, it seems that Henry Waxman is sooooooooo tough that he is not issuing any subpoenas. Ooh boy! Hold Mr. Waxman back! He sure is daaangerous!
Congressman Henry Waxman has written 11 letters to Condoleeza Rice over the last 4 years that have gone unanswered by Secretary Rice. 11 letter, and no response. So, what is Waxman doing now? Guess.
That’s right - he’s writing another letter! Apparently, Waxman hopes that Secretary Rice will have changed her mind about ignoring him, and answer this one… or else! Or else he might just write another letter.
“Waxman did not directly threaten a subpoena, but now that House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers has opened the investigatory floodgates we certainly won’t rule it out,” writes Buzzflash. Investigatory floodgates?
People kept on excusing the Democrats for talking tough and not acting tough while the Democrats were in the minority in Congress. They said that the Democrats were not taking action because they couldn’t.
Now, we see that lie exposed. The Democrats could be taking action now, but they’re not. All we’re getting with a Democratic majority in Congress is more tough talk, and the same old promises that they just might take action, sometime, later, maybe.
Oooh, you had best watch out for those Democrats in Congress, or they’ll write you another letter!
I read in the New York Times today that a variety of American corporations, figuring out that the Democratic Party will become the majority in the House and quite possibly the Senate, are pouring loads of campaign cash into Democratic coffers.
Soon after the election, expect a Democratic agenda to be articulated which will be associated with the use of words like “pragmatic,” “prudent” and “practical.” Not mentioned will be for whom Democratic policies will be pragmatic, prudent and practical — because to mention the benefit of corporate benefactors would itself be unpragmatic, imprudent and impractical to Democratic Party politicians.
I cannot see how this turn of events is to be avoided, unless the current form of fundraising is replaced by public financing. Expect that structural change to be resisted as itself highly unpragmatic, imprudent and impractical — and you know for whom I mean.
The already infamous Military Commissions Act was signed into law by President Bush yesterday, and don’t think that this milestone in the decline of American democracy went unnoted. George W. Bush himself said that the occasion was historic. I agree, but not with the same value. October 17, 2006 will be a day of shame for the United States of America. It will take us a generation to recover from the attacks on liberty represented in the Military Commissions Act, if we ever recover at all.
The Military Commissions Act, HR 6166 and S 3930 ends enforcement of the Geneva Conventions, removes habeas corpus rights, makes torture legal, sets up kangaroo courts in the USA, and gives the President the power to imprison anyone he likes, so long as he declares that person to be an “enemy”. The law also gives legal amnesty to any American who committed war crimes over the last 5 years… including George W. Bush himself.
In short, the Military Commissions Act establishes Hell on Earth. Perhaps it is no coincidence, then, that this video fireside chat of President Bush in his secret undisclosed location has surfaced:
An independent chronicle of the battle for and squabbles within the U.S. House and Senate, covering the most interesting campaigns and the most controversial legislation.
