Text 16846, 94 rader
Skriven 2005-12-28 13:33:02 av Alan Hess
Ärende: Executive power grab
============================
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.chapman28dec28,1,1286853.
story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
Executive power grab


By Steve Chapman

December 28, 2005

CHICAGO -- President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the
federal government should be limited but the powers of the president should
not. He wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the framers did but
doesn't think he should be constrained by the framers' intentions.

He attacked Al Gore for trusting government instead of the people, but he
insists anyone who wants to defeat terrorism must put absolute faith in the man
at the helm of government.

His conservative allies say Mr. Bush is acting to uphold the essential
prerogatives of his office. Vice President Dick Cheney says the
administration's secret eavesdropping program is justified because "I believe
in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in
demands it."

But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving formula: What's good
for Mr. Bush is good for America, and anything that weakens his power weakens
the nation. To call this an imperial presidency is unfair to emperors.

Even people who should be on Mr. Bush's side are getting queasy. David Keene,
chairman of the American Conservative Union, says that in his efforts to
enlarge executive authority, Mr. Bush "has gone too far."

He's not the only one who feels that way. Consider the case of Jose Padilla, a
U.S. citizen arrested in 2002 on suspicion of plotting to set off a "dirty
bomb." For three years, the administration said he posed such a grave threat
that it had the right to detain him without trial as an enemy combatant. In
September, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

But then, rather than risk a review of its policy by the Supreme Court, the
administration abandoned its hard-won victory and indicted Mr. Padilla on
comparatively minor criminal charges. When it asked the 4th Circuit Court for
permission to transfer him from military custody to jail, though, the
once-cooperative court flatly refused.

In a decision last week, the judges expressed amazement that the administration
suddenly would decide Mr. Padilla could be treated like a common purse snatcher
- a reversal that, they said, comes "at substantial cost to the government's
credibility." The court's meaning was plain: Either you were lying to us then,
or you are lying to us now.

If that's not enough to embarrass the president, the opinion was written by
Judge J. Michael Luttig, who was on Mr. Bush's short list for the Supreme
Court.

This is hardly the only example of the president demanding powers he doesn't
need. When American-born Saudi Yasser Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, the
administration also detained him as an enemy combatant rather than entrust him
to the criminal justice system.

But when the Supreme Court said he was entitled to a hearing where he could
present evidence on his behalf, the administration decided that was way too
much trouble. It freed him and put him on a plane back to Saudi Arabia, where
he may plot jihad to his heart's content. Try to follow this logic: Mr. Hamdi
was too dangerous to put on trial but not too dangerous to release.

The disclosure that the president authorized secret and probably illegal
monitoring of communications between people in the United States and people
overseas again raises the question: Why?

The government easily could have gotten search warrants to conduct electronic
surveillance of anyone with the slightest possible connection to terrorists.
The court that handles such requests hardly ever refuses. But Mr. Bush bridles
at the notion that the president should ever have to ask permission of anyone.

He claims he can ignore the law because Congress granted permission when it
authorized him to use force against al-Qaida. But we know that can't be true.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales says the administration didn't ask for a
revision of the law to give the president explicit power to order such wiretaps
because Congress - a Republican Congress, mind you - wouldn't have agreed. So
the administration decided: Who needs Congress?

What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At times like
this, it's apparent that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush want more power not because
they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power. Another
paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but they
can't be bothered to earn it.

Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. His column appears
Mondays and Wednesdays in The Sun. His e-mail is schapman@tribune.com.

Copyright + 2005, The Baltimore Sun | Get Sun home delivery

--- Msged/2 6.0.1
 * Origin: tncbbs.no-ip.com - Try the CROSSFIRE echo - all welcome (1:261/1000)