As buhdydharma discusses in a current diary, Senator Patrick Leahy has scheduled a hearing for March 4, 2009 for the purpose of "Getting to the Truth Through a Nonpartisan Commission of Inquiry."
A "fact finding" commission is a waste of time. As buhdy lays out in detail, we already know enough facts to indict dozens of people in the George W. Bush administration for war crimes. We Don't Need No Stinking "Truth Commission." What we need is a Special Prosecutor to investigate the George W. Bush administration for War Crimes. Sign the petition here.
After the revelations of the past two days, it is obvious that we need another Special Prosecutor to investigate the assault on civil liberties by George W. Bush and his administration.
In nine legal opinions, the Bush Justice Department claimed "the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights."
Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.
"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, adding later: "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."
On Sept. 25, 2001, Yoo discussed possible changes to the laws governing wiretaps for intelligence gathering. In that memo, he said the government's interest in keeping the nation safe following the terrorist attacks might justify warrantless searches.
Attorney General Eric Holder said of the documents, "Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties. Not only is that school of thought misguided, I fear that in actuality it does more harm than good."
U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor determined in a 2006 ruling that "the NSA program violates the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control (...) particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights."
In December 2005 Bush was asked (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-2.html, link no longer available) about what limits there are "on the powers of a President during a war" and if there was going to be "a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive," he replied:
First of all, I disagree with your assertion of "unchecked power" (...) There is the check of people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters. There is oversight. We're talking to Congress all the time, and on this program, to suggest there's unchecked power is not listening to what I'm telling you. I'm telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times.
This is an awesome responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the American people, and I understand that, Peter. And we'll continue to work with the Congress, as well as people within our own administration, to constantly monitor programs such as the one I described to you, to make sure that we're protecting the civil liberties of the United States. To say "unchecked power" basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the President, which I strongly reject.
(...) what's important for the American people to understand. I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country.
Capitol Hill Blue reported that "GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the (Patriot) act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court."
His reply:
"I don’t give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!"
:: ::
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at George Washington University, an expert on constitutional law and constitutional criminal law, and widely published in a variety of leading law journals.
As a guest on Keith Olbermann's March 3 Countdown program, Turley said:
These memos provide the very definition of tyranny. These memos include everything that a petty despot would want; the use of the military in searches and seizures; suspension of free press, free speech; arrest of individuals without legal process. (...) What is really pathetic is the memo on January 15, where Bradbury finally just said "we don't believe most of this stuff, that this is just something that can't be sustained." You've got eight years of Constitutional terror for civil libertarians, followed by five days of legal contrition. It is really quite pathetic. I mean it is basically an effort of Bush lawyers to say "we want to go back into the bar despite the fact that for the last eight years we have been saying we could suspend every element of a free nation."
These memos weren't written in a vacuum, they were written for a reason. They went to people like John Yoo and Viet Dinh and others to hear hear what the president wanted them to say. The question is then "what did they do in response?" Well we know, among other things, that they created a torture program. The question is "how much more don't we know" and I think we are going to find out that this was the mere foundation for a greater edifice that has yet to be disclosed.
I was taken aback. You know I have debated John Yoo, I have known him for years and I still cannot believe that he would produce this type of work. First of all, it's really bad in terms of his legal analysis. He is arguing that powers of self defense, where officers can use lethal force, can be a justification for warrantless surveillance. It's the type of stuff that you send back papers of law students over. It really does show, I think the great tragedy of a very bright individual working very very hard to satisfy the president and to tell him what he wanted to hear.
I have to tell you, I think we have got to say "enough." That we are no longer a nation of chumps. You have a bunch of people here, many of which are my friends, who are trying to work mightly hard to avoid what they know they are morally and legally obligated to do. Now what this shows is this was never a question about political power, it was the lack of personal conviction. So it's up to the rest of us to say if President Obama means it, that no one is above the law, we need a Special Presecutor, we need to investigate. Not another Commission.
I agree.