View previous stories
	The Imperial Presidency by Miami Herald / NYT / Boston Globe / The Guardian USA   26 December 2005   "Fear destroys what bin Laden could Not", by Robert Steinback. (The Miami Herald)   One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn''t win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.   If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden''s attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution - and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it - I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.   Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat - and expect America to be pleased by this - I would have thought our nation''s sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.   If I had been informed that our nation''s leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas - and call such procedures necessary for the nation''s security - I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.   If someone had predicted the president''s staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy - and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy - I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.   That''s no America I know, I would have argued. We''re too strong, and we''ve been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path. What is there to say now?   All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying "Happy Holidays" could be a disguised attack on Christianity.   I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America''s character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke - speaking metaphorically now - mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we''d follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.   Never would I have expected this nation - which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty - would cower behind anyone just for promising to "protect us."   President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he''ll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president - or is that king? - has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.   Is that America''s highest goal - preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, "What''s wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?"   Bush would have us excuse his administration''s excesses in deference to the "war on terror" - a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn''t know where tomorrow''s first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fighting infection - even when it''s beaten, you must continue the fight or it will strike again.   Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law forever? It''s time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?   Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.   Ultimately, our best defense against attack - any attack, of any sort - is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bush clearly doesn''t understand or respect that. Do we?   December 23, 2005   "Mr. Cheney"s Imperial Presidency". (The New York Times)   George W. Bush has quipped several times during his political career that it would be so much easier to govern in a dictatorship. Apparently he never told his vice president that this was a joke.   Virtually from the time he chose himself to be Mr. Bush"s running mate in 2000, Dick Cheney has spearheaded an extraordinary expansion of the powers of the presidency - from writing energy policy behind closed doors with oil executives to abrogating longstanding treaties and using the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to invade Iraq, scrap the Geneva Conventions and spy on American citizens.   It was a chance Mr. Cheney seems to have been dreaming about for decades. Most Americans looked at wrenching events like the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal and the Iran-contra debacle and worried that the presidency had become too powerful, secretive and dismissive. Mr. Cheney looked at the same events and fretted that the presidency was not powerful enough, and too vulnerable to inspection and calls for accountability.   The president "needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conduct of national security policy," Mr. Cheney said this week as he tried to stifle the outcry over a domestic spying program that Mr. Bush authorized after the 9/11 attacks.   Before 9/11, Mr. Cheney was trying to undermine the institutional and legal structure of multilateral foreign policy: he championed the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Moscow in order to build an antimissile shield that doesn"t work but makes military contactors rich. Early in his tenure, Mr. Cheney, who quit as chief executive of Halliburton to run with Mr. Bush in 2000, gathered his energy industry cronies at secret meetings in Washington to rewrite energy policy to their specifications. Mr. Cheney offered the usual excuses about the need to get candid advice on important matters, and the courts, sadly, bought it. But the task force was not an exercise in diverse views. Mr. Cheney gathered people who agreed with him, and allowed them to write national policy for an industry in which he had recently amassed a fortune.   The effort to expand presidential power accelerated after 9/11, taking advantage of a national consensus that the president should have additional powers to use judiciously against terrorists.   Mr. Cheney started agitating for an attack on Iraq immediately, pushing the intelligence community to come up with evidence about a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda that never existed. His team was central to writing the legal briefs justifying the abuse and torture of prisoners, the idea that the president can designate people to be "unlawful enemy combatants" and detain them indefinitely, and a secret program allowing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on American citizens without warrants. And when Senator John McCain introduced a measure to reinstate the rule of law at American military prisons, Mr. Cheney not only led the effort to stop the amendment, but also tried to revise it to actually legalize torture at C.I.A. prisons.   There are finally signs that the democratic system is trying to rein in the imperial presidency. Republicans in the Senate and House forced Mr. Bush to back the McCain amendment, and Mr. Cheney"s plan to legalize torture by intelligence agents was rebuffed. Congress also agreed to extend the Patriot Act for five weeks rather than doing the administration"s bidding and rushing to make it permanent..   Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have insisted that the secret eavesdropping program is legal, but The Washington Post reported yesterday that the court created to supervise this sort of activity is not so sure. It said the presiding judge was arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges and that several judges on the court wanted to know why the administration believed eavesdropping on American citizens without warrants was legal when the law specifically requires such warrants.   Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are tenacious. They still control both houses of Congress and are determined to pack the judiciary with like-minded ideologues.   December 21, 2005   "The American nightmare", by Philip James. (The Guardian)   The Bush administration"s defence of unauthorised phone taps shows a chilling disregard for the rule of law ..   Is America becoming what it most fears: a big brother state ruled by diktat, where no one is protected from eavesdropping by the secret police, and everything is permitted in defence of the homeland, including torture?   Perhaps I"m naive, but I grew up believing that America was somehow different, that alongside the corporate greed, brash materialism and barely functioning social safety net, a unique society prospered. This America was a land of limitless opportunity, a magnet to those escaping oppression, offering prince and pauper alike the possibility to dream big.   This America still exists, but it is being eroded by an administration that believes it can rule outside the rule of law. They are fast replacing the American dream with an American nightmare, an Orwellian world where memos defending torture are penned in the department of justice and judges are made redundant in the public interest.   The irony of President Bush"s proud statement this week on the Iraqi elections was inescapable. "The Iraqi people now enjoy constitutionally protected freedoms and their leaders now derive their powers from the consent of the governed," he said at the start of a press conference in which he defended eroding those freedoms at home while asserting his power to act without judicial check.   Waiting to authorise wiretaps on suspected enemies of the state takes too long, long enough for them to act, went the argument. This is bogus. The laws in place make attaining a warrant for a wiretap extremely easy. What"s more, once a warrant is obtained, it is effective without review for up to 120 days.   The warrant law is not some tiresome piece of procedural bureaucracy, but the only safeguard against the executive branch of government targeting anyone they don"t particularly like for any reason of their choosing. It was put in place after the Watergate scandal demonstrated how easily the White House could persecute its perceived political opponents by drawing up secret enemies lists.   In an astonishing display of candour, Dick Cheney now looks back on the Nixon presidency with chilling nostalgia, ruing the loss of unfettered executive power. "Watergate and Vietnam served ... to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area," opined the vice-president to a gaggle of reporters in the cabin of Air Force Two, as they flew over the Middle East.   Dick Cheney isn"t the only one prone to bouts of nostalgia, nowadays. I have begun to look back on my first close encounter with American power. I was a young journalist covering the Reagan-Gorbachev summit in Moscow. The sight of the presidential motorcade growling through Red Square, literally pulling up to the front door of the "evil empire" was nothing less than awesome. But something that seemed insignificant at the time stayed with me.   I was struck by how fascinated Gorbachev"s security detail was with its American counterpart. As the two delegations negotiated the end of the Soviet Union inside the Kremlin, outside KGB agents marvelled at the air conditioning of the secret service agents" Chevy Suburbans, the superior fabric of their suits.   The Russians" eyes revealed more than material envy, however. They betrayed the acknowledgment that the Americans represented to them the pinnacle of individual freedom, while they remained locked in the dark ages of a repressive state. I wonder if today"s Russians still marvel at America in the same way, an America that cannot clearly renounce torture as an acceptable method of interrogation and sanctions secret spying on anyone the president considers threatening.   While the rest of the world may have lost faith in America long ago, President Bush is counting on the continued support of Americans. He has calculated that, after 9/11, the American people are prepared to trade some constitutional liberties for personal safety. It is a cynical calculation that has worked so far. So far fear has triumphed over hope.   The first rumblings of a backlash are finally evident in a Congress that has up to now been loth to challenge a wartime president. Sensing that the president may have overplayed his hand, Republican senator Arlen Specter has announced he"ll hold hearings into Mr Bush"s decision to allow domestic wiretaps without court approval.   Public opinion still lags behind the outrage of senators. In a country that still feels it could be one day away from the next terrorist attack, public opinion may never catch up. Fear may still triumph over hope.   (Philip James is a former senior Democratic party strategist)   December 22, 2005   “On wiretapping, President Bush isn"t listening to the Constitution, by Edward M. Kennedy. (The Boston Globe)   The President is not above the law; he is not King George. Yet, with sorrow, we are now learning that in this great land we have an administration that has refused to follow well-crafted, longstanding procedures that require the president to get a court order before spying on people within the United States. With outrage, we learn that this administration believes that it does not have to follow the law of the land.   Not just above the law, this administration seems to be saying that it IS the law. It contends that it can decide on its own what the law is, how to interpret it, and whether or not it has to follow it. I believe that such an arrogant and expansive view of executive power would have sent chills down the spines of our Founding Fathers - as it does for every American hearing these startling revelations today.   The president, the vice president, the secretary of state, and the attorney general tell us that the president can order domestic spying inside this country - without judicial oversight - under his power as commander in chief. Really? Where do they find that in the Constitution? Time and time again, this president has used his express, but limited, constitutional power to command the military to justify controversial activities - after the fact.   The president is the commander in chief of the military. That doesn"t give him the power to spy on civilians at home without any judicial oversight whatsoever, without ever revealing those activities to even well-established courts that review these matters in secrecy. Otherwise, every phone and computer in America should now come with a warning label: Warning: the privacy of your communications can no longer be guaranteed, by order of President Bush.   The president has the constitutional obligation to protect and defend the American people. That is obvious -- but he also took an oath of office, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." With his arrogant usurpation of power and refusal to follow well-established wiretapping laws, I believe that this president is not living up to that oath. By shunning the oversight of the courts and ignoring the express language of the laws passed by Congress, this president is, in my judgment, defiantly and stubbornly ignoring the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.   Our founders did not fight a Revolutionary War to give such expanded, unchecked powers to the executive. Quite the contrary. Their concern was precisely the abuse of executive power.   The president has admitted, without any remorse, that he has repeatedly authorized his own advisers at the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on individuals inside the United States, without the prior court approval required under well-established laws. This president is focused on scapegoating The New York Times for breaking the story that brought this questionable spying program into the light of day. Once again, he"s telling us - "trust us, we are doing whatever we can to protect you." Well, that"s just not enough. We want real answers about this program. Why were the courts cut out of the process, when judicial oversight is required by law? Yesterday the vice president cut short his trip to the Middle East to break the tie in a vote on an irresponsible budget proposal that will hurt America"s families, yet he couldn"t find the time to level with the American people and tell them exactly where the president has the authority to spy on them.   This is not a new debate. Years ago, with bipartisan support, I spearheaded the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which specifically requires the attorney general to obtain prior authorization from a judge, in a secret expedited proceeding, before engaging in domestic spying or wiretapping. Now, the president says that that law is "insufficient" and "outdated" to meet the current threats in the war on terror because it was passed nearly 30 years ago. The Constitution took effect in 1789 - and it is still good law today.   I hope the president doesn"t continue to hide behind such transparent and irrelevant justifications. Congress has amended the 1978 FISA law over time, most recently with the passage of the PATRIOT Act - and there is no reason to think we wouldn"t do so again - if we knew what the administration is doing. If the president needs more powers to lawfully protect the American people from terrorism, then he should come to Congress to seek modification of current laws. The president has failed to provide a sufficient legal basis for his actions; instead he and his Cabinet spent the week refusing to negotiate with Congress and opposing bipartisan efforts to extend the PATRIOT Act for three more months.   Just this past week there were public reports that a college student in Massachusetts had two government agents show up at his house because he had gone to the library and asked for the official Chinese version of Mao Tse-tung"s Communist Manifesto. Following his professor"s instructions to use original source material, this young man discovered that he, too, was on the government"s watch list.   Think of the chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom when a government agent shows up at your home - after you request a book from the library.   Incredibly, we are now in an era where reading a controversial book may be evidence of a link to terrorists. Something is amiss here. Something doesn"t make sense. We need a thorough and independent investigation of these activities. The Congress and the American people deserve answers now.   (Edward M. Kennedy is the senior US senator from Massachusetts)
	Indigenous Leaders celebrate Morales Victory by Diego Cevallos Inter Press Service (IPS) Latin America   Mexico City, Dec 2005   Indigenous Leaders celebrate Morales Victory, by Diego Cevallos. (IPS)   The election of indigenous leader Evo Morales as president of Bolivia is being hailed by native leaders from throughout the region as a "sign of hope" for all impoverished and discriminated indigenous peoples in Latin America.   Guatemalan Nobel Peace Prize laureate Rigoberto Menchú said that Morales has brought "a refreshing wind" for all aboriginal peoples.   For his part, the president of the powerful Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), Luis Macas, said that Morales" victory is a historical landmark unlike anything seen "since the time of Spanish colonialism."   Morales, who captured 51 percent of the votes in Sunday"s elections according to preliminary results, will take office on Jan. 22 as the first indigenous president in the history of Bolivia, where 60 percent of the population of 8.6 million identify themselves with one of the country"s indigenous groups, according to the 2002 census.   The 46-year-old president-elect, a member of the Aymara community, Bolivia"s largest ethnic group, emerged as a leader of the country"s coca farmers in the central region of Chapare, and has consistently spoken out for the struggles and demands of the country"s poverty-stricken and marginalised indigenous majority.   Menchú, a Mayan Indian activist who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992, said that Morales" triumph was "an important precedent in the social struggles of the entire region," but warned that "we know he is going to need all of the support of his brothers and sisters."   Rafael González, chair of the Committee for Campesino Unity (CUC) in Guatemala, told IPS he hopes "Morales" victory will have repercussions throughout the Americas," and that in the future, other indigenous peoples "will have a president who truly represents them, like the one in Bolivia."   There are between 33 and 40 million indigenous people in Latin America, divided into some 400 different ethnic groups, although almost all share something in common: poverty and discrimination.   Indigenous organisations and leaders, like Morales, Menchú, Macas and González, among others, have been struggling to draw attention to this reality and making ever louder demands for political and social change in their countries since the early 1990s.   Over the last 15 years, powerful, organised indigenous movements in Latin America have succeeded in overthrowing governments in Bolivia and Ecuador and forced the issue of aboriginal people"s rights onto the political agenda, as in the case of Mexico and the primarily indigenous Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN).   Throughout the same period, a growing number of indigenous people have been elected to public office, as mayors, members of Congress and government ministers. In Bolivia itself, Aymara Indian Víctor Hugo Cárdenas served as vice president from 1993 to 1997.   Now an indigenous politician has reached the highest seat of power for the first time in Bolivia.   Morales "will always be able to count on his indigenous brothers and sisters. If we can counsel or support him in any way, we will do so," said Menchú.   The Nobel Prize winner cautioned that the new president will be confronting "a very complicated and complex task, because he will be leading a country where racism and discrimination are very deep-rooted," in addition to "serious economic problems, poverty and social and political divisions."   A World Bank report released this year, titled "Indigenous Peoples, Poverty and Human Development in Latin America: 1994-2004", revealed that 74 percent of indigenous people in Bolivia live in poverty.   "Almost two-thirds of the indigenous population is among the poorest 50 percent of the population," the researchers reported, noting that "if gains were perfectly distributed, Bolivia"s indigenous population would require about twice as much income per person as the non-indigenous population to escape poverty."   The indigenous population has 3.7 fewer years of schooling (a total of 5.9 years) than the non-indigenous population (9.6 years) in Bolivia, while the incidence of child labour is nearly four times higher among indigenous than non-indigenous children, the study adds.   The World Bank report points out that the political influence of indigenous peoples in Latin America - who account for 10 percent of the population of the region - has "grown remarkably" in the last 15 years, as measured by indigenous political parties and elected representatives, constitutional provisions for indigenous people, and indigenous-tailored health and education policies.   Nevertheless, income levels among this group, as well as human development indicators such as education and health conditions, "have consistently lagged behind those of the rest of the population."   In the five Latin American countries with the largest indigenous populations - Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru - simply being born indigenous increases the probability of being poor by between 13 and 30 percent.   Luis Macas believes that the election of an indigenous president will not only benefit Bolivia, but the rest of Latin America as well.   His fellow CONAIE representative Miguel Guatemal, the group"s organisational director, said it was especially encouraging that Morales had won the presidential elections within a "neoliberal and colonial" system.   "For all of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, Morales" victory is an important precedent that shows there is hope for the future," Guatemal commented to IPS.
	View more stories