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.
