I’ve been keeping quiet lately, partly occupied with other projects but mainly out of disgust with the general news that have been coming down the pipe. Two news items in a row have shaken me out of my self-imposed apathy.
First, an executive order allows the government to seize financial assets of anyone who’s deemed to threaten the efforts of stabilization in Iraq. This sounds like a handy tool against them terrorists, doesn’t it? The order itself is so broad, however, that it can easily be used against anybody opposing the war. From the White House site iself:
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
It looks to me like all those protestors and the people who want the U.S. to withdraw its troops would definitely fall under that category. A lot of people have pointed out the obvious: this basically throws the fifth amendment to the wind, which states (besides the right to not incriminate yourself) that:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I expect they’re reconciling this by classifing it as a time of public danger. Like a good friend who shall remained nameless pointed out, expect this to be used first against the pro-bono attorneys helping those detained in Guantánamo and elsewhere.
And then today, a new one.
As has become evident before, Bush’s administration believes that the separation of powers was not intended for a balancing of authority among several blocs, providing a system of checks and balances. No, it actually means that nobody else can tell him what to do, so the other powers might as well take a hike. The administration is now stating that the Justice Department just won’t be able to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials since, you know, the powers are separate and all.
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: “It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys.”
[...]
“That’s a breathtakingly broad view of the president’s role in this system of separation of powers,” Rozell said. “What this statement is saying is the president’s claim of executive privilege trumps all.”
Can you see the punchline coming?
David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel’s office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a “unitary executive.” In practical terms, he said, “U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president’s will.” And in constitutional terms, he said, “the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch.”
Now take that to its logical extreme, and have a nice weekend.
Ricardo Freedom, News and politics