Friday, July 20, 2007

Dictator Watch

This story is more of a reminder than news. Apparently the media is just starting to get a wiff of what is likely to happen once Congress issues contempt citations to the White House:

To appreciate the White House's new claims of executive privilege, it's important to understand how contempt charges work. First, the House or Senate issues "a statutory contempt citation," which is given to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who then has to convene a grand jury. But none of this would be able to happen under the White House's new position on the matter, which an expert in executive privilege called "astonishing." It all amounts to "a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," the expert said. This view of executive privilege is apparently based on an opinion issued by the Justice Department during the Reagan administration.
Whatever opinion they are saying they depend on, make no mistake that it's Abu Gonzales that is pulling the strings at DOJ. As I've said numerous times, Bush hasn't kept his good buddy at DOJ simply because they're good friends. Bush is covering his flank and enhancing his ability to play out the clock.

When (not if) Bush ignores any contempt citation, and when (not if) the DOJ refuses to prosecute it, time will continue to pass. Hopefully, and that's a big hopefully, via other suit remedies (or if the Congressional Sgt-At-Arms goes to the White House and arrests someone) the courts will ultimately rule in Congresses favor via a civil suit. But by then, Bush figures to be out of office and will care less what is revealed. Bush, correctly in my estimation, realizes that no one will have the stomach to bring criminal charges against a former President.

Too bad ... that.

Update: Here's the actual statement from the White House on the subject:
"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," a senior official told the Post, which granted the official anonymity because 'he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly.' "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."
I think that's a "tag, you're it" moment to Congress. I guess if the Pentagon can have an intelligence agency, Congress can have a police force with jails.

But then you have a former Reagan administration official saying this:
"Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."

...

Roberts said that because of Bush's unpopularity, the Republicans face a total wipeout in 2008, and this may be why "the Democrats [and Republicans in safe seats I might add] have not brought a halt to Bush's follies or the war, because they expect his unpopular policies to provide them with a landslide victory in next year's election."

However, Roberts emphasized,"the problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that Cheney and Rove and the Republicans are ignorant of these facts, or it assumes that they are content for the Republican Party to be destroyed after Bush has his fling." Roberts believes instead that Cheney and Rove intend to use a renewal of the War on Terror to rally the American people around the Republican Party. "Something's in the works," he said, adding that the Executive Orders need to create a police state are already in place.
Wow. My denial system says that this is perhaps a bit of hyperbole. Then my experience says that it's true. Afterall, what hyperbolic prediction about Bush's pursuit of executive authority has not come true thus far? I wonder just how far things have to go before Congressional Republicans step in to remove these clowns?

If Congress does nothing, we're all in more deep yogurt. Are people going to have to take to the streets with weapons or something? You have to wonder? The most fundamental basis on our peaceful system of government is that power is balanced, executives are checked, and imbalances can be equalized via a system that is responsive to it's citizens. If that breaks down, and it certainly seems to be breaking down, people are left with going outside the system or submitting to dictatorship.

Update II: Care to guess who the Reagan official was who issued the opinion that the White House could thumb it's nose at a contempt citation by forcing the DOJ to not prosecute?

Ted Olson.

No comments: