Submitted by BuzzFlash on Thu, 07/05/2007 - 11:29am.
Steven Jonas
The lead item in the now famous Washington Post series on Cheney and who
really is the President concerns the following incident (Gellman and
Becker, "A
Different Understanding with the President, 6-24-07). On Nov. 13,
2001, Cheney presented Bush with a draft document on the judicial handling
of foreign "terrorism" suspects. It had not been vetted by any staff of
any government official other than Cheney's own. After a review of unknown
depth and breadth, Bush signed the document as an Executive Order.
Secretary of State Powell and National Security Advisor Rice found out
about it on the evening news.
The Washington Post treatment of the event plays upon the unusual role for
a Vice President that Cheney plays in the current Administration, and how
he has direct control over Bush and his actions, on important matters
bypassing all kinds of the usual Executive Branch input. However, much
more important than what Cheney's role is and what it is not, is what he
has used, is using, and will use it for.
In that particular Executive Order, following the Cheney diktat, Bush
amended the Constitution on his own authority. He did this in two ways. He
removed from any "terrorism" suspects (so named by Bush or a designee),
citizen or non-citizen alike, on U.S. soil or not, all of the
legal/judicial process protections guaranteed under the Fourth, Fifth, and
Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. By ignoring at the same time the
provisions of the Geneva Conventions Treaties to which the U.S. is a
signatory, he violated the provisions of Article VI, which makes Treaties
signed by the President and ratified by the Senate the "Supreme Law of the
Land." Cheney, as you know, is a devotee of a unique theory of government
he calls the "Unitary Executive." (Others, and I am one of them, call it
"Dictatorship.") I have read Article II of the Constitution, which defines
the Executive Branch and describes its duties, numerous times, and just
cannot happen to find those powers in there.
It is time to recognize that this, the numerous Constitution-violating,
Constitution-amending positions, policies, and programs undertaken by
BushCheney or CheneyBush (you choose), is what constitutes the most
important issue of the next election. These people have had a 7-year long
campaign to shred the Constitution, and they are succeeding in doing that
very well. If we do not return to Constitutional government following the
next election, it will be a very long time before we will see it again in
our beloved country, and much blood will have been spent in the interim.
And so, where are the Democrats on all of this? Not united, it would seem.
Revealing are two fundraising letters that recently came across my desk
from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, both written by senior
Democrats before the appearance of the Post series. In dealing with what
the prime current issues are as the two writers see them, one says: "We
have fighting men and women pinned down in a civil war in Iraq, real wages
[are down], more people have lost their health coverage or have slipped
into poverty, our debt is out of control, and we are using fossil fuel
faster than we can find more --- and endangering our planet at the same
time." All true enough, and all like the typical Democratic laundry list
of "what needs to be done" (except for no specifics on Iraq) that we have
been used to for the last 40 years.
The other says: "We are an occupying force in the middle of a civil war in
Iraq -- unquestionably the worst strategic mistake In American history;
The president claims the right to seize any person -- including American
citizens -- on his say-so and hold them without trial for the rest of
their lives; Civil rights activists have accused the president's political
operatives of using dubious claims of voter fraud in order to increase
Republican vote totals; The NSA illegally engages in domestic wiretapping
of citizens on the orders of the president; The president, his advisors
and his allies in Congress have conspired to grant him unheard-of powers
that destroy our system of checks and balances; if the President has the
inherent authority to wage a war without the support of the American
people or Congress, to eavesdrop on citizens without a warrant, kidnap and
imprison American citizens on his own declaration, then what can't he do?"
Yes, indeed, folks, and THAT is the prime question before us for the next
election. It's not about Cheney arrogating power to himself. It is about
what he has done with the power and what, then, a future Republican
President, like, say, "9/11" Giuliani, would continue to do with it. The
problem for Democrats is that none of the declared candidates for the
nomination (other than Dennis Kucinich) are talking about it. So who made
the statements, both in DSCC letters? Respectively, none other than the
last two Democratic Executive Branch elected office holders, Bill Clinton
and Al Gore. So who would you rather see as the Democratic candidate in
2008, the former's wife or the latter himself?
Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook
University (NY), a weekly contributing author for
The Political Junkies, and contributing editor for
The Moving Planet Blog.
