Reply
Sun 7 Oct, 2007 09:30 am
October 6 / 7, 2007
Who Will Confront the Unprecedented and Unconstitutional Concentration of Executive Power?
Where are the Lawyers of America?
By RALPH NADER
Counter Point
The rogue regime of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney-so widely condemned for its unconstitutional, criminal Iraq war, its spying on Americans illegally, its repeated illegal torture practices, its arrests and imprisonment of thousands in this country without charges and its pathological secrecy and corporate corruption-still has not felt the heat of the 800,000 practicing lawyers and their many bar organizations.
Lawyer jokes aside, the first defense outside of government against the rejection of due process, probable cause and habeas corpus should come from the officers of the courts-the attorneys of America. With few exceptions, they have flunked, asleep at the switch or loaded with excuses.
The exceptions are a number of law professors such as David Cole (Georgetown University) and Jonathan Turley (George Washington University) and the magnificent one-year presidency of Michael Greco at the conservative American Bar Association.
Mr. Greco, appalled at the outlaw nature of the Bush White House, now wallowing in the pits of the public opinion polls, organized former counsel to the CIA, the National Security Agency and the FBI, among others, to produce detailed reports and resolutions assailing the Bush government for repeatedly violating the constitution in numerous ways. (http://www.abanet.org/)
Reports were sent to Mr. Bush personally. He did not even bother to acknowledge receipt. The ABA has over 400,000 members and is the largest bar association in the world. Not even a courtesy reply from George Bush, the American Caesar.
Unfortunately, the courage of Greco and his colleagues has not been contagious with hundreds of thousands of lawyers throughout America or the 50 state bar associations who might have taken some action or position to stand after the ABA stood tall in 2005-2006.
Mind you, the climate for lawyers defending the rule of law is quite enabling. Seventy percent of the American people want out of Iraq and nearly as many would like to see this Presidency end. A poll of soldiers in Iraq back in January 2006 registered 72% of them wanting the U.S. out of Iraq within six to twelve months.
In addition, scores of former Generals and high military officers, retired intelligence officials and diplomats have openly criticized the intransigence, incompetence and harm to the U.S. national security. These leaders include the national security advisers to Bush's father, Brent Snowcroft, the anti-terrorism advisor to George W. Bush, Richard Clark, and many others who served in high government office.
With all this in mind, I have been asking lawyers why they do not become directly active in challenging what they themselves believe is a reckless above-the-law Presidency and its enormous concentration of unlawful power. Here are some examples of their replies.
--real estate attorney with a sterling civil liberties background says "I am just too busy."
--numerous retired lawyers of considerable accomplishment simply say they are retired.
--mid-career business attorneys say they have too many clients who might object (too much wheeling and dealing to uphold the rule of law in Washington, D.C.).
--public interest lawyers say it is not within their declared mission-eg. environmental, consumer, poverty or law reform work.
--"Too controversial," and "I'm not up to it," announced a prominent trial lawyer.
--"I wouldn't know where to start and I just need my leisure time," replied a highly specialized estate and trusts attorney.
And so it goes. Too preoccupied, too many deals in the works, too controversial, too retired
The Democratic leadership in the Congress has given Bush/Cheney a giant nod by taking a pass on holding them accountable through impeachment, through conditions in budget bills, through making them answer subpoenas by playing hardball on Bush's nominees, such as his new choice for Attorney General.
It is up to the lawyers to rally for the Republic. This is deep patriotism, for without upholding our constitution, and the laws of the land, what will become of our country?
What will our children and their grandchildren inherit-a bankrupt government that contracts out more and more of its core functions to staggeringly expensive giant corporations seeking limitless profits, while they finance and corrupt politicians to turn their back on the peoples' needs?
Lawyers are supposed to know how to apply law to raw power. They know how to use the courts, lobby (there are hundreds or thousands of attorneys in each of most Congressional Districts). They can cut through the arcane camouflage of legalese. They know when the laws are being violated and what the remedies are for the violators. They know how to draft legislation. They have contacts and money and are not supposed to be frightened of conflict. The super-lawyers invariably get their calls returned.
Where are the lawyers of America?
Two major terrorist strikes, with a messianic, compulsively-obsessed President, can do to America what 9 months of nightly bombing by the Nazis could not do to England-move us much closer to a police state.
Where are the stand-up lawyers of America?
I wonder something.
The dems are complaining about all the power that the President seems to have now, but if they win the WH will they still want to remove that power from the President, or will they suddenly decide that the Pres really does need all that power?
My bet is the latter instead of the former.
Mysteryman
Is Ralph Nadar a dem?
I thought he is green.
mysteryman wrote:revel wrote:mysteryman wrote:I wonder something.
The dems are complaining about all the power that the President seems to have now, but if they win the WH will they still want to remove that power from the President, or will they suddenly decide that the Pres really does need all that power?
My bet is the latter instead of the former.
You would be dead wrong.
Care to bet on that?
I was speaking for myself as one of the "dems' being against the power grab of the Bush administration. It seems unfair to bet on myself; but I am game if you are.
Congress already has the power to stop this war, virtually immediately.
1) They can repeal the "Terrorist Laws", which in my humble opinion have seriously eroded some of our freedoms under the "Bill of Rights".
2) They can cut funding for anything related to Iraq at any time.
3) They can call for impeachment at any time in the case of Presidential misbehavior. (and you can bet the Dems are just itching to get a little payback for the Reps effort to fry Clinton.)
Have any of these measures been done? Nope! It is easy to blame Bush for all the ills in the World/Country..... I submit that the means to end at least some of them rests in our Congress.
The will of the people seems to be "end the war". Congress seems to be deaf to our pleas. The will of the people seems to be "secure our borders against illegal immigrants". Congress seems to be deaf to our pleas.
Do you get the impression that we, the taxpayers, have lost control of our Government, ostensibly in place to "represent" the people? Hell, I remember the time when they used to be called "Public Servants". I haven't heard that term in a very long time. The apparent term we should be using, I guess, is the "Elected Elite".
A pox on both party's houses. Re-Elect NO ONE for three elections. At the end of that time we willl have a whole new cast of characters, the Lobbiests will be in disarray, and you had better believe that those who survive the "sorting out" will listen to the voice of the people.
Halfback
Halfback wrote:Congress already has the power to stop this war, virtually immediately.
1) They can repeal the "Terrorist Laws", which in my humble opinion have seriously eroded some of our freedoms under the "Bill of Rights".
2) They can cut funding for anything related to Iraq at any time.
3) They can call for impeachment at any time in the case of Presidential misbehavior. (and you can bet the Dems are just itching to get a little payback for the Reps effort to fry Clinton.)
Have any of these measures been done? Nope! It is easy to blame Bush for all the ills in the World/Country..... I submit that the means to end at least some of them rests in our Congress.
The will of the people seems to be "end the war". Congress seems to be deaf to our pleas. The will of the people seems to be "secure our borders against illegal immigrants". Congress seems to be deaf to our pleas.
Do you get the impression that we, the taxpayers, have lost control of our Government, ostensibly in place to "represent" the people? Hell, I remember the time when they used to be called "Public Servants". I haven't heard that term in a very long time. The apparent term we should be using, I guess, is the "Elected Elite".
A pox on both party's houses. Re-Elect NO ONE for three elections. At the end of that time we willl have a whole new cast of characters, the Lobbiests will be in disarray, and you had better believe that those who survive the "sorting out" will listen to the voice of the people.
Halfback
I understand what you are saying. I don't understand why there hasn't been a call for impeachment either or why after all the talk the 'dems' seem to give in against the will of the people. Its almost like they really agree with the president but just pay lip service to people like myself who are fed up with the administration's ways to pacify us to get votes. Its frustating to say the least.
Its frustating to say the least.
Not only you but the whole innocent victims around the globe as well.
The corporate, consume-oriented conservative system controlled by invisible JESUS of American brand.
i'm more concerned than mysteryman appears to be, but i can't fault his premise.
if "the dems" means voters, then i have to disagree, but we're talking about candidates and people in government. in that case, i stopped having higher expectations than i do with "conservative" candidates a while ago.
both are going to rape the constitution, and neither are going to put it back the way it was. if i had any reason or experience leading me to believe otherwise, i'd be out campaigning. don't hold your breath waiting for politicians to preserve civil liberty, unless there is a track record of doing so from the past several terms.
this may seem cynical, pessimistic, and oddly constructed to people that would like to see things like the patriot act (read: suspending of the constitution) brought to its end. what candidates actually have that on their platform? only those from the constitution party, whose platform really consists of getting rid of the patriot act, then effectively the consitution, and replacing it with a fundamentalist christian theocracy.
no one seems to have a priority of say, having "america" again. that country seems to be a sort of political relic of days gone by. that brings me back to the voters, who i know to be well intentioned- what platform do you think you're really voting for? none of it is about reducing the power the president has stolen. we're campaigning, we don't talk about the issues. and when we're in, we won't have to, as the line between politics and rhetoric has finally been completely erased, in order to fight terrorism of course.
oh and thanks for playing, ralph, if we need you to throw any elections we'll call you.
please go stuff yourself until then, as i'm sure you're genuinely concerned about the state we're in, you sanctimonious a**hole.
The day ... the rule of law ... died ... and they were singing Bye bye miss american pie ...
revel wrote: I understand what you are saying. I don't understand why there hasn't been a call for impeachment either or why after all the talk the 'dems' seem to give in against the will of the people.
Perhaps it is because they know full well that most of the charges of abuse of power are greatly inflated and by noi means unprecedented?
tinygiraffe wrote:oh and thanks for playing, ralph, if we need you to throw any elections we'll call you.
please go stuff yourself until then, as i'm sure you're genuinely concerned about the state we're in, you sanctimonious a**hole.
When does he enter the '08 race anyway?
not after he joins the human one.
Quote:Perhaps it is because they know full well that most of the charges of abuse of power are greatly inflated
i'd like to know how inflated they are, my understanding of it is that he can sit and veto any part of a law he doesn't like, and then rewrite them line for line.
that might be an exaggeration. and yet, only that and one other thing would explain why the constitution is falling apart left and right. 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments (really important ones that all other freedom basically rests on) have been badly damaged to say the least, and then of course there's the other, equally disturbing thought-
that it isn't the bush administration, but every branch of the federal government, and almost everyone in it. lately it seems more and more this way, but with the media nonsense over the last few years, i couldn't make heads or tails of the propaganda. seems like we're bent over from every direction.
tinygiraffe wrote:not after he joins the human one.
Quote:Perhaps it is because they know full well that most of the charges of abuse of power are greatly inflated
i'd like to know how inflated they are, my understanding of it is that he can sit and veto any part of a law he doesn't like, and then rewrite them line for line.
This is plainly false. He can't "veto" parts of any bill. He either vetos a bill or signs it.
Has Bush used siging statements? Yes. Has he used them more than any of his predecessors. Yes again. But he isn't the first to use them and, while has has used them more, there aren't many examples of situations where the bill he signed said one thing and then he actually did the opposite.
So a statement that he's used signing statements more often would be true but claims that he's flouted laws passed by the Congress don't pan out.
Quote:that might be an exaggeration. and yet, only that and one other thing would explain why the constitution is falling apart left and right. 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments (really important ones that all other freedom basically rests on) have been badly damaged to say the least, and then of course there's the other, equally disturbing thought-
that it isn't the bush administration, but every branch of the federal government, and almost everyone in it. lately it seems more and more this way, but with the media nonsense over the last few years, i couldn't make heads or tails of the propaganda. seems like we're bent over from every direction.
Being that the alleged damages to those rights have been upheld by the courts and that most of those powers were approved by the Congress the 2nd option here is the only logical one of the two offered. If that is the case, is it an abuse of power or an impeachable offense for a President to do what the Congress and Courts have given him the power to do?
that's a good question, and i don't really know what the answer is.
i still think impeachment would be an excellent start, of course. if we can find a way to impeach everyone else upholding this nonsense, i'd support that.
Congress's lack of action and retroactive approval don't let Bush off the hook for the lies and tricks he used in taking this nation to war, spying on Americans and lying about it, being mixed up in the whole Plame scandal, getting around the GC and authorizing torture.
This website sums up the reasons why George Bush deserves to be impeached pretty well. I am sure there are others and all the links and arguments of all the actions the administration has taken the last few years have been left through out this site in any case.
I realize this congress is not going to do it and is in fact enabling this administration on which is why I am sick of the whole blamed place and probably why this congress has even lower approval ratings than the president.
In the name of 'fighting the war on terror' we have lost sight of the freedoms of that which we say we are fighting for. It makes no sense.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace