Friday, January 27, 2006

The phrase often used in the past...

Previous Artcle: Has the phrase "rule of law" lost its meaning...

January 26, 2006

The phrase often used in the past to provide a shield, most often for a president when some piece of information unexpectedly became public, was “plausible deniability”. It was a little more sophisticated process than just looking surprised and saying ‘gosh I didn’t know that’, but that was the basic idea. This president and his administration, however, don’t seem to care if their denials are plausible; they just keep disputing that which is undeniably obvious. And on top of their often dubious and duplicitous positions, they say they intend to keep doing whatever it is they’ve done in the past, attributing to their actions rights and privileges that have never been heard of before, and are not derived from any constitutionally-designated powers, nor do they comport with any legislative imperatives.

The president contends, for example, that he has the right to wiretaps that may involve oversight of domestic sources without first going to the FISA Court for permission. He asserts he has the inherent power through the Constitution to pursue such warrant-less surveillance and backs up that shaky premise with the notion that it follows seamlessly from the moment Congress granted him the use of force should it become necessary in dealing with Iraq. Both assertions stand on weak ground, and putting Attorney General Gonzales front and center to support the president’s actions is not the least bit reassuring, given the fact that he has proven to be less of a legal star than an administration flunky.

It is often said that it is the president’s job to protect the nation as stipulated in the Oath of Office. But the “preserve and protect” section of the oath refers to the Constitution; that’s the core problem when special powers are claimed by the executive. The Constitution assigns powers to the three branches of government, and the language is quite clear. There are no extra-curricular powers the president may assume at his whim.

But though the focus is currently on the domestic surveillance issue, secrecy and arrogance are nothing new for this presidency. With regard to what and when the White House knew about Katrina, officials who were involved will not testify before Congress on the basis as spokesman Trent Duffy says of the right of the president “…to get advice with his top advisors that remains confidential.” This, of course, is similar in kind to the refusal of VP Cheney to share information about the members of the energy industry with whom he met to formulate energy policy early on.

In the pursuit of information whether it is Congress, the press or ordinary Americans, this administration feels it can wrap everything in the mantel of “national security” or that curious, newly-fashioned right of the president and his people to develop policy in secret meetings. It would seem, however, that often it isn’t the development of policy but the lack of it that is being kept under wraps. Michael heck-of-job-Brownie will not be available to discuss the Katrina debacle in Congress, most likely because he would seem just as inept as he did in his previous appearance.

And, with respect to mine safety, in the face of serious questions about recent disasters and reduced funding for safety inspectors and devices, mine-safety officials gave perfunctory answers to Congress and left abruptly before committee members had finished questioning them.

Crony capitalism wouldn’t be quite so offensive if it were accompanied by crony competence, but that’s the catch of course. Special interests are rarely committed to conducting the people’s business in a just and competent manner. Under this administration the country is being governed by those who have become unreachable and unaccountable for actions that have no constitutional or legal basis.

LINK

No comments: