Some Really Hard Questions For The Candidates
Last week (February 26, 2008, to be precise) I read this op-ed piece by Nat Hentoff. Now, I don't always agree with Nat Hentoff (although I mosly do on First Amendment issues), but even when I don't agree with him, Mr. Hentoff always make me stop, think, and take stock. He's the kind of "pundit" I think earns his pay. This particular column, however, didn't require me to squirm, because it was on a subject I think is absolutely crucial to democracy in this country right now and in this election cycle: that of the pernicious "unitary president" theory and this administration's blatant (and successful) use of secrecy and opacity to further the goals of a president who would be dictator.
Hentoff bases this column on a piece written by Steven Aftergood for the Nieman Watchdog, a project of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard. Mr. Aftergood's full article is available here and I urge everyone to put down their coffee and move their fannies over to read it in its entirety. Mr. Aftergood nicely nails down a lot of the the facts and concerns that many of us have expressed and does so in a fashion that puts the pieces together. He concludes that article with a series of questions that should/must be asked of any candidate who would change his/her address to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:
Q. Will you disclose the full scope of Bush Administration domestic surveillance activities affecting American citizens, including all surveillance actions that were undertaken outside of the framework of law, as well as the legal opinions that were generated to justify them?
Q. Will you specify precisely what sort of coercive interrogation techniques were employed by the Bush Administration, as well as their purported justifications, so that the nation may openly decide whether to embrace or to repudiate such techniques?
Q. Will you renounce the practice of extraordinary rendition that is not sanctioned by any judicial process? Will you issue a formal apology to Maher Arar for his mistaken arrest, deportation and torture?
Q. Will you disclose at least a summary account of the contents of each of the Bush Administration's National Security Presidential Directives, as well as your own?
It's late in the game when it comes to the Democratic nominee (much of this post is being written Tuesday evening at 6 PM PST), but these questions will be even more important when it comes to the general election, and here's where Nat Hentoff's critical reading comes in: he's been paying attention (and, so you don't have to scroll up, here's that url again):
Aftergood quotes McCain: "Excessive administration secrecy ...feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public's confidence in government." And he cites Obama: "I'll turn the page on a growing empire of classified information. We'll protect sources and methods, but we won't use sources and methods to hide the truth." Aftergood also quotes Clinton: "We need a return to transparency and a system of checks and balances, to a president who respects Congress' role of oversight and accountability." But I haven't heard any of the frontrunners stress this need for a clean break with the Bush administration's use of a "unitary executive" doctrine to cloak these and other extra-judicial, and indeed extra-legal,practices in deep secrecy. [Emphasis added]
We know that John McCain will just be another four (and FSM willing, only four) years of Bush doctrine, and, to be honest, we also know that neither Obama nor Clinton are shining progressive lights, both being centrist DLC spawn, but these questions must be asked if only to let all three candidates know that at least part of the population is paying attention, and to let those congress critters who have been struggling against the tide of the fear-mongering mofos of both parties these past seven years that at least some of us have their back. And if those wimps in the cocktail weenie circuit won't ask the questions, then the rest of us will have to find a way to do so.
[Note: Steven Aftergood's bio is located here. His blog on government secrecy issues for the American Federation of Scientists can be found here.]
Hentoff bases this column on a piece written by Steven Aftergood for the Nieman Watchdog, a project of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard. Mr. Aftergood's full article is available here and I urge everyone to put down their coffee and move their fannies over to read it in its entirety. Mr. Aftergood nicely nails down a lot of the the facts and concerns that many of us have expressed and does so in a fashion that puts the pieces together. He concludes that article with a series of questions that should/must be asked of any candidate who would change his/her address to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:
Q. Will you disclose the full scope of Bush Administration domestic surveillance activities affecting American citizens, including all surveillance actions that were undertaken outside of the framework of law, as well as the legal opinions that were generated to justify them?
Q. Will you specify precisely what sort of coercive interrogation techniques were employed by the Bush Administration, as well as their purported justifications, so that the nation may openly decide whether to embrace or to repudiate such techniques?
Q. Will you renounce the practice of extraordinary rendition that is not sanctioned by any judicial process? Will you issue a formal apology to Maher Arar for his mistaken arrest, deportation and torture?
Q. Will you disclose at least a summary account of the contents of each of the Bush Administration's National Security Presidential Directives, as well as your own?
It's late in the game when it comes to the Democratic nominee (much of this post is being written Tuesday evening at 6 PM PST), but these questions will be even more important when it comes to the general election, and here's where Nat Hentoff's critical reading comes in: he's been paying attention (and, so you don't have to scroll up, here's that url again):
Aftergood quotes McCain: "Excessive administration secrecy ...feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public's confidence in government." And he cites Obama: "I'll turn the page on a growing empire of classified information. We'll protect sources and methods, but we won't use sources and methods to hide the truth." Aftergood also quotes Clinton: "We need a return to transparency and a system of checks and balances, to a president who respects Congress' role of oversight and accountability." But I haven't heard any of the frontrunners stress this need for a clean break with the Bush administration's use of a "unitary executive" doctrine to cloak these and other extra-judicial, and indeed extra-legal,practices in deep secrecy. [Emphasis added]
We know that John McCain will just be another four (and FSM willing, only four) years of Bush doctrine, and, to be honest, we also know that neither Obama nor Clinton are shining progressive lights, both being centrist DLC spawn, but these questions must be asked if only to let all three candidates know that at least part of the population is paying attention, and to let those congress critters who have been struggling against the tide of the fear-mongering mofos of both parties these past seven years that at least some of us have their back. And if those wimps in the cocktail weenie circuit won't ask the questions, then the rest of us will have to find a way to do so.
[Note: Steven Aftergood's bio is located here. His blog on government secrecy issues for the American Federation of Scientists can be found here.]
Labels: Bush Legacy, Election 2008, The Unitary President
posted by Diane at 3:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home