Former Reagan aide: Congress relinquished its power

The House Judiciary Committee’s hearing analyzing Congressional response to alleged actions of the Bush administration wrapped up after more than six hours of testimony and questioning. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) said the Bush administration told aides to ignore subpoenas, an action Wexler said is in direct violation of the Congressional oversight based in the Constitution. Bruce Fein, deputy attorney general under Reagan, said the Founding Fathers established oversight so that citizens would be aware of the decisions of their leaders, adding that refusing to appear before Congress is similar to contempt and grounds for impeachment.

Fein continued, saying that Congress has voluntarily relinquished its right to checks and balances to the White House by being unresponsive to the White House’s numerous actions that warrant investigation. He also said that Congress has accepted the notion that a President can declare war without the approval of Congress, an action prohibited by the Constitution. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) suggested that Congress form a bipartisan legal oversight committee that would investigate executive encroachments on the Constitution and the legislature. Schiff said the committee should begin functioning immediately, be bipartisan, and examine historical precedents that led to increased presidential power.

Comparisons were made between allegations against the Bush administration and the impeachment proceedings of President Nixon. Rocky Anderson, founder and president of High Roads for Human Rights, said Americans viewed Nixon’s impeachment as being based in a violation of executive trust, not necessarily violations of law. Former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman (D-N.Y.), who served on the Judiciary Committee during the Nixon era, said bipartisan investigations were successful during Nixon hearings because the Judiciary Committee went to great lengths educating members of Congress and citizens on the Constitution and the compiled evidence.

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) the only Republican who stayed for the entire hearing, made a closing statement in which he emphasized the difference between a “misstatement” and an “intentional misstatement.” He said it is easy to make allegations but that hindsight is not enough to assume decisions made by the White House were intentionally misleading.

A snowball in the Middle East

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, discussed North Korean and Iranian nuclear proliferation at a banquet in the House of Representatives. Bolton described the current status of the North Korean and Iranian programs and attributed the White House’s changing policy towards North Korea and Iran to President Bush’s desire to leave a positive foreign policy legacy. He said both states have large influence in the Middle East and that making concessions to them could cause a snowball effect in the region.

Bolton lambasted President Bush’s suggestion to remove North Korea from the state sponsors of terrorism list. He said North Korea directly engages in acts of terror and should not be removed from the list simply due to its unrelated nuclear status. Bolton countered Bush’s stance by saying North Korea has not halted its uranium enrichment program and that the Bush administration is going out of its way to cast doubt on its existence.

Bolton also expressed frustration towards US-Iranian diplomacy, saying the Bush administration’s policy of not engaging in talks with Iran until Iran dismantles its nuclear program is in violation. He said the possibility of the United States placing foreign affairs officers in Tehran would show Iran that the United States will concede if given time. Bolton also added his opinion that an Obama administration would allow Iran’s quest for nuclear power to continue uninhibited.

Water boarding proved "very valuable" in Guantanamo

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft spoke at the fifth part of a hearing entitled “From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules.” Ashcroft defended the Department of Justice’s action in Guantanamo Bay, saying that they worked within the framework of the law and never supported torture.

Ashcroft said that after 9/11, the Bush Administration’s overriding goal was to do everything within its power and within the limits of the law, to keep this country and the American people safe from terrorist attacks. He spoke about the Administration’s efforts to work within the law and follow Supreme Court rulings about torture and interrogations in Guantanamo, and that water boarding was never ruled as torture and has “proved very valuable.” Although the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against certain features of Administration policy in each of these cases, the “Justices themselves were closely divided and the courts of appeals had uniformly upheld the Administration’s positions.”

Ashcroft spoke in defense of the several memos in the Department of Justice about interrogation techniques and anti-torture, saying they were all legal and worked off Supreme Court decisions. Ashcroft said that the Administration’s continual quest for legal guidance and specific authorization for measures necessitated by the “war on terror” is evidence of a government striving to keep within the limits of law, not one seeking to ignore or evade those limits.

Also at the hearing was Benjamin Wittes, follow and research director in public law at the Brookings Institute. Wittes said that the Army Field Manual contains a great deal of specificity about the interrogation tactics used and it is a mark of how successful the policy changes have been that not even human rights groups today complain much about contemporary military interrogation policies. However, the current state of the law is inadequate due to the vagueness which gives the Administration enough interpretive latitude to authorize some pretty extreme tactics, such as water boarding, Wittes said.

Bush’s policy a “hoax”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called global warming and energy policy “the issue of our time” at a press conference where she urged President Bush to relieve high gas prices by opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Pelosi said the SPR is 97 percent full, the highest it has ever been, and that Americans deserve access to gasoline purchased with their tax dollars. Pelosi, who made a similar request to Bush ten days ago, added that gas prices would have lowered by now if Bush had acted when she originally asked. Pelosi repeatedly stated that despite having two oil men in the White House, gas prices remain over $4.

Continuing, Pelosi said Bush’s energy policy have caused price spikes and discussed the democratic DRILL (Drill Responsibly In Least Lands) Act, an act that advocates increased developments in energy alternatives and minimal drilling. She noted that calls for off-shore drilling by Republicans will take ten years to enact and only lower prices by $0.02. Pelosi said this route would cause the average family to spend $57,000 on gas in the next decade. She called Bush’s solution to high energy prices a “hoax” and said a majority of Americans agree that increasing the development of alternative energies is a good way to decrease prices while building new jobs.

In reference to increased violence in Afghanistan, Pelosi criticized the White House for initially turning its attention towards Iraq, allowing the situation in Afghanistan to worsen. She said Democrats in Congress demand accountability from the military and the Executive Branch, adding that Bush is now realizing the commitment that is necessary to fight extremism in Afghanistan.

America’s legal system reviewed in light of Guantanamo

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing today about how the Bush Administration’s railed detainee policies have hurt the fight against terrorism. The witnesses discussed the lower credibility of the United States' action in Guantanamo Bay from a legal perspective.

Colonel Will Gunn, retired chief defense council for the Department of Defense office of military commissions, said that the government has taken several actions with respect to detainee policy in the post 9/11 era that have significantly “eroded this nation’s standing in terms of respect for human rights.” Gunn outlined several factors that show how the United States has done this through hiding prisoners, coercive interrogations, and an overall policy shift on Geneva Conventions.

“The system I encountered had several drawbacks which generated controversy, diminished the U.S.’s prestige at home and abroad, and fueled widespread perceptions that the system was unfair,” Gunn said. While some of the problems have been addressed by the Supreme Court, many still remain. Gunn recommended using the court martial system an federal courts to dispose of the cases of detainees that should be tried in a court of law.

David Rivkin, partner in the law firm Baker and Hostetler LLP, supported the Bush Administration’s actions in Guantanamo. He said that although members of Congress have “decried the detainee’s fate” at Guantanamo, few have offered suitable alternatives for the prisoners, so they must be keep there.

The individuals who crafted the policy in Guantanamo and the different legal aspects of the “war on terror” viewed the constitution as an obstacle and viewed the checks and balances of the U.S. government unnecessary, said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies. Martin said in order to restore America’s standing as an example of just law, it must reinstall due process of law and the right of habeas corpus for the detainees at Guantanamo.