Ten Reasons Congress Must Investigate Bush
Administration Crimes
Jeremy Brecher
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006
Submitted to Portside
Few elections in history have provided so clear a
mandate. As the New York Times put it, Democrats were
"largely elected on the promise to act as a strong
check on[Bush's] administration."[1] But the first
response of the new Congressional leadership has been
to proclaim a new era of civility and seek
accommodation with the very people who need to be held
accountable for war crimes and subversion of the
Constitution.
Democratic strategists who argue for this kind of
bipartisanship maintain that the American people want
their political leaders to address the problems of the
future, not pursue recriminations about the past. They
therefore oppose the kind of penetrating investigation
that a White House strategist told Time would leadto a
"cataclysmic fight to the death"[2] if Democrats start
issuing subpoenas. If such "peace at any price"
Democrats prevail, the result will be a catastrophe not
only for the Democratic party but for American
democracy.
Establishing accountability will require a thorough
investigation of the actions of the Bush administration
and, if they have included crimes or abuses, ensuring
that these are properly addressed by Congress and the
courts. The purpose of such action is not to play
"gotcha" based on hearsay and newspaper clippings.
Investigation, exposure, and even prosecution or select
committee proceedings, should they become necessary,
are primarily means for reestablishing the rule of law.
But such investigations may be blocked by the
Democratic leadership unless American citizens and
progressive Democrats in particular demand them. Here
are ten reasons why they should:
1. The US faces a constitutional crisis that goes far
beyond either partisan politics or isolated acts of
wrongdoing. The Bush administration has tried to
replace the constitutional rule of law with the power
of the Executive branch to disregard both the laws
established by the Legislative branch and the judgments
of the Judicial branch. It has cloaked this power grab
with a mantle of secrecy. Only by demonstrating the
power of Congress to know what the Executive branch
does can even the possibility of constitutional checks
and balances be restored. The prerequisite for
oversight is the right to know. Unless Congress
successfully asserts that right, the Executive's
usurpation of power will be permanent and unlimited.
2. The Democrats are in danger of walking into a death
trap the Bush administration and the Republican
leadership are setting for them. The Democrats won the
election on ending the Iraq war and holding the
President accountable. In the current courtship they
are being invited to come up onto the bridge of the
Titanic and share responsibility for the catastrophe.
Ifthey do that, they will end up at the 2008 election
with a disillusioned public (especially their own base)
who give them equal blame for the war and its
catastrophic consequences. As the Nation recently
editorialized, "Democrats must not forget the voters'
message. If they collaborate in allowing continued
bloodletting in Iraq, they will pay the price
themselves in future elections."[3]
3. Defending the Constitution by investigating breaches
in the rule of law will allow Democrats to appeal to
new bases of support among independents and others
concerned about the rule of law. It provides a way of
reaching out without selling out.
The potential for such a broad and powerful coalition
is exemplified by a recent statement by the
Constitution Project -- which includes both liberals
and conservatives like David Keene, Chair of the
American Conservative Union --that hails the election
result as "an opportunity to restore checks and
balances." It says, "The president has asserted that he
has virtually unrestrained authority and that Congress
and the courts have none. Congress must exercise, and
the president must respect, its constitutional
obligation to legislate and conduct oversight on issues
like NSA wiretapping, military commissions, the
detention and treatment of 'enemy combatants,' habeas
corpus, and the power to declare war." If the
Republicans were able to win by running on the Bible,
Democrats can do far better by running on the
Constitution and restoring the rule of law.
4. Bush still holds most of the institutional cards on
foreign policy, especially given his claims that the
President can exercise authority without Congressional
constraint. Short of an unlikely cutoff of funds, he
can continue to conduct foreign policy and command the
military as he chooses. Congress has few direct levers
to impose Democratic proposals for new diplomatic
initiatives or troop redeployments. It does not even
have effective institutional means to stop further Bush
administration adventures, such as an attack on Iran.
The key to establishing power over foreign and military
policy is to so discredit the Administration in the
eyes of the public that neither Republican politicians
nor the military, the intelligence agencies, the
foreign policy establishment, or the corporate elite
will allow it to continue on its catastrophic course.
And that requires not friendly negotiations with the
White House to find a formula for bipartisan packaging
of policy decisions Bush has already made, but a
devastating exposure of the criminality, corruption,
stupidity, and false premises of those who are making
the decisions.
5. A Democratic Congress that fails to assert its
prerogatives against the President will soon find
itself losing the initiative in the face of the
President's capacity to frame issues. While
investigations are sometime portrayed as purely
negative acts, by putting the Administration on the
defensive they may actually lay the groundwork for
constructive Democratic proposals.
6. A majority of the American people and an
overwhelming proportion of grassroots Democrats want
the President impeached. A mobilization forimpeachment
was kicked off last weekend with speeches by Elizabeth
Holtzman, Cindy Sheehan, and others. Serious
investigation of Bush administration malfeasance is
probably the only way that Democratic leaders reluctant
to pursue impeachment can avoid themselves becoming the
target of this constituency. Indeed, impeachment
advocates can be encouraged to direct some of their
energy to supporting such investigations on the grounds
that exposure of high crimes and misdemeanors might be
the only way to put impeachment "on the table."
7. Exposing the truth about America's actions in the
world over the past years, and holding those
responsible for it accountable, is the prerequisite to
setting relations with the world on a new, more
constructive basis. As Philippe Sands, professor at
University College London and a leading international
human rights lawyer, puts it, "If the United Statesis
to re-engage effectively with the rest of the world
they have to resurrect accountability for their high
officials."
8. The US government under the Bush administration has
systematically and flagrantly violated national and
international law. If the perpetrators of these crimes
are given permanent impunity with the collusion of
Congress, future law-breakers will assume that they can
commit similar crimes with impunity. Whether or not
Bush administration officials can be subject to
criminal prosecution or impeachment, the exposure of
their acts can subject them to the kind of public
repudiation they deserve. That can begin setting us
back on a track toward international law that restrains
crimes by the leaders of all nations, however great or
small. For as Antoine Bernard, executive director of
the International Federation of Human Rights, has said,
"The key to peace and democracy building world-wide is
accountability for internationalcrimes."
9. Hearings and investigations are crucial means to
establishing institutional and cultural barriers to
future crimes. At the close of the Vietnam war, the
Church Committee established significant limits on
executive authority, such as a strengthened Freedom of
Information Act and a ban on assassination of foreign
leaders. These were originally passed over the
objection of then presidential aide Dick Cheney, and he
devoted his Vice-Presidency to dismantling them.
Investigation of such Executive abuses is the
prerequisite for restoring public access to government
information and developing new oversight mechanisms to
enforce bans on torture, wiretapping, aggression,
executive secrecy, and other illegal and
unconstitutional executive activity.
10. Setting the public record straight about what has
happened over the past six years is essential for
reestablishing discourse based on reality that can be
tested by evidence and argument, rather than on fantasy
propagated by national leaders and amplified by their
media sycophants. A respect for truth pursued through
honest dialogue based on evidence and argument will be
essential not only for beginning to heal the wounds
created by Bush's illegal war of aggression, but for
addressing problems like global warming that a
fantasy-based public discourse has evaded.
52% of Americans believe that investigating the origins
of the Iraq war is a high priority and 58% want
Congress to pursue contracting fraud in Iraq.[4] But
that will not automatically translate into action by
Congress. Convincing the Democratic leadership to
support investigations will require sustained pressure
from outside groups. This pressure needs to build early
-- before the new legislative session begins -- so the
Leadership perceives efforts to squash committee action
as politically hazardous.
Fortunately, progressive activists are elegantly
positioned to mobilize such pressure. They were the
troops on the ground for virtually every victorious
Democrat. They can set up district meetings with
Members, organize phone banks for support calls, submit
op-eds and letters to the editors, and organize town
meetings on accountability. The time to start is now.
Jeremy Brecher is a historian whose books include
Strike!, Globalization from Below, and, co-edited with
Brendan Smith and Jill Cutler, In the Name of
Democracy: American War Crimes in Iraq and
Beyond(Metropolitan/Holt). He has received five
regional Emmy Awards for his documentary film work. He
is a co-founder of WarCrimesWatch.org.
more...
Brendan Smith is a legal analyst whose books include
Globalization From Below and,with Brendan Smith and
Jill Cutler, of In the Name of Democracy: American War
Crimes in Iraq and Beyond (Metropolitan). He is current
co-director of Global Labor Strategies and UCLA Law
School's Globalization and Labor Standards Project, and
has worked previously for Congressman Bernie Sanders
(I-VT) and a broad range of unions and grassroots
groups. His commentary has appeared in the Los Angeles
Times, The Nation, CBS News.com, YahooNews and the
Baltimore Sun. Contact him at
smithb28@gmail.com.
[1]RobinToner, "A Loud Message for Bush," New York
Times, ll/8/06.
[2]Karen Tumulty and Mike Allen, "It's Lonely at the
Top," TimeMagazine, October 29, 2006. Available at:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1552033,00.html
[3]Posted 11/9/06.
[4]Marcus Marby, "Are the Faithful Losing Their Faith?"
Newsweek, Oct21, 2006. Available at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15357623/site/newsweek/page/2/
portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news,
discussion and debate service of the Committees of
Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to
provide varied material of interest to people on the
left.
To submit an article to portside, go to:
http://www.portside.org/submit
For answers to frequently asked questions:
http://www.portside.org/faq
To subscribe to the list:
http://www.portside.org/subscribe
To unsubscribe from portside:
http://www.portside.org/unsubscribe
For assistance with your account:
http://www.portside.org/contact
To search the portside archive:
http://www.portside.org/archive
