mycatharsis.com

In President Bush’s very own extremely loaded words …

Unfortunately, some of the private companies have been sued for billions of dollars because they are believed to have helped defend America after the attacks on 9/11. Now the question is, should these lawsuits be allowed to proceed, or should any company that may have helped save American lives be thanked for performing a patriotic service?

IF that’s the question, the answer seems simple. Why NOT let the lawsuits proceed? What possible reason is there for interfering in the process of justice?  If there is a question about the legality of what was done, let the justice system take it’s course.  That USED to be conservative reasoning, at least.

Of course, the real  reason he wants immunity so desperately is to protect his and his administrations own hide from the discovery process in these lawsuits that could expose large scale illegal action.  In other words, the system might actually work as long as immunity is not given.

And, of course, the other reason is that these lawsuits are entirely without merit.  We live in an era Antonin Scalia describes as one of “rising police professionalism”, so of course skirting the constitution is just fine.  Our government would NEVER abuse the power we give it …

ACSBlog has an informative analysis of the legal issues presented by each side in the flap over Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten ignoring Congressional subpoenas and the Attorney General’s refusal to allow the U.S. attorney referred in the case to follow the law and present the case to a grand jury. Reading the links for Miss Pelosi’s letter and Mukasey’s response, I gotta say that Pelosi sounds a lot more reasonable, presenting the point that even if they refuse to answer questions, they still should at least respect the subpoena and appear …

There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so.  Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place.  Surely, your Department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury.

Not only that, but Mukasey’s refusal to even allow attorney Jeffrey Taylor to bring the congressional contempt charge before a grand jury IS pretty stunning.  Far from seemingly being independent as past attorney’s general (even Janet Reno angered Bill Clinton when she appointed independent counsel Ken Starr), this AG seemingly is willing to not only refuse to investigate his boss, but to actively interfere in a legal process taking place against him.  Maybe he has a stronger argument than he laid out in his response to Pelosi, because citing two memo’s from this own administration as evidence of a long-standing policy is not that strong in itself.  Again, it speaks to this administrations belief that they are above the strong law-and-order surveillance society they say is necessary for all of us.

Is there anyone left for this administration to alienate? In short, yes.   Today Barack Obama reaffirms his belief in the ‘individual rights’ mantra of the Second Amendment, while George Bush’s Department of Justice asks the Supreme Court to adopt a ‘reasonableness’ standard
as it considers Washington D.C.’s gun ban.  At best Bush’s supporters can say there is little to no difference in their positions on the right to bear arms.  At worst, you can say the Bush administration has abandoned one of it’s strongest supporting groups,  to an extent that many gunowners can reasonably conclude that Obama would be a better protector of their ownership rights than President Bush, especially when Bush’s general regard for the Constitution and the rule of law is considered.

When the Democrats swept back into power last year, I figured that at the least our descent into tyranny would at least be delayed by a divided government.  I didn’t expect miracles, but I had some hope that Congress would finally stand up to this president and insist on a smidgen of accountability.

Instead, they’ve basically given him anything they’ve wanted.  The Senate passing a bill giving legal protection from prosecution to telecom companies who handed over phone records en masse to the government is just another example.  Harry Reid’s Senate could not even meet the pitifully low expectations I had for them coming into this session.  They’ve let themselves be bullied and used by someone who basically should not be telling anyone what to do, not with the record low approval ratings he has right now, and not with his lame duck status either.  Now it’s on to Nancy Pelosi and the House, where citizens concerned about the rule of law are left to hope they have something Reid and the Senate do not, namely a backbone.   Barack Obama had the common sense and courage to vote against giving these companies immunity.  McCain at least let his position be known by voting for it, and Hillary Clinton had neither common sense nor courage, not bothering to show up to the Senate to vote on the bill, despite being in the area.

As bad as the idea of forgiving companies for what MAY be illegal acts is, the hypocrisy of the Bush administration on this issue is even worse.  Like a petulant child, Bush has stamped his foot and vowed to veto any bill by the House that only temporarily extends the Act, insisting Congress pass his bill right this instant.  The real hypocrisy is just how insistent this President is in protecting these corporations from the rule of American law.  For a president who has turned a deaf ear to thousands of citizen requests and issued fewer pardons and commutations than any other in the last hundred years, it is the height of hypocrisy to insist these corporations have to be protected from their earlier illegal actions.  You don’t ask for immunity from following the law, after all.

Consider this.  In his six years in office, he’s only reduced the sentences of FOUR federal prisoners.  Reagan had three times that number at this point in his presidency, and that was back when parole for federal offenses was much more common.  Two of those sentences were merely reduced from 20 to 15 years, and one was reduced from 9 years to 6.  Only one sentence was commuted entirely.  Guess who?  Yeah, Scooter Libby.  Even people like me who voted for this guy can’t help but conclude that the rule of law is a great idea for those in power, just so long as it’s not applied to them or who they do business with.  No wonder this country wants change.