Rummy!

[sabreur]

That is generally agreed to refer to the State of the Union address, not to a requirement that the President's advisors and assistants and appointees must scurry up to Congress to answer for their actions. They answer to the President, not to Senate subcommittees.

You should read the Constitution yourself, instead of reading in to it.

The Congress has oversight over the executive branch. The name "executive" itself explains what the role of the executive is supposed to be--it is supposed to execute the law, which is created by the Congress. The Congress allows the executive to interpret and implement its directives (there is a whole area of law created by regulatory agencies in response to direction from the Congress), but it is a long standing right of the Congress to call members of the executive before it to explain how they are fulfilling their responsibilities.... And the root of that is in the Constitution, thank you very much. And me, I'm glad that someone is watching the candy store.

MR

[telkanuru]

What I object to is whenever someone asks him a question on a subsection of current affairs (ie. how many people have been tortured), he answers with some form of "I don't know". Damnit, he's SecDef. It's his business to know, especially when he's about to be questioned by people about. This leads me to believe that he is either a) completely incompetent or b) willfully hiding things to prevent further political damage. Neither of these make me happy.

[daeceg]

My favorite is when he said he hadn't seen the photos until what-almost a week after the story broke? (sigh)

Many things are troubling here. Torture is against the U.S. Constitution in several ways. First off, the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment". Now-I know some of you are thinking that only applies to US citizens. But the Constitution explicitly states that any and all treaties the U.S. enters into are to be considered as equivalent in stature to the Constitution. Including the Geneva Conventions...

So, when the President asks the Justice Department if it's okay to torture people, he is actively seeking to subvert the Constitution-which as president, he has sworn to uphold. (on a related note, the man who wrote the opinion that torture is acceptable is now a federal judge...a little quid pro quo?)

Of course, this is hardly news. His very ascension to the office of presidency subverted the Constitution. (there are very clear procedures spelled on, in which during a disputed result, the House of Representatives is supposed to decide-Supreme Court should have refused to hear the case in the first place. If procedure had been followed, the result would have been the same-but the rules would have been followed...sigh....)

[Inquartata]

true, scooping power is something. but when different media sources report on the matter with different, new facts, i tend to start to believe.

But HAVE there been "new, different facts"? Everything seems to trace back to one media organization, which printed a story about a memo saying thus and such. Without any independent confirmation that the memo actually said thus and such in so many words, or indeed that it even really existed. ( I am willing to accept that the memos exist, in some form, though I wonder how these journalists supposedly got their hands on them---recent events involving concocted stories in such previously reputable organs as the NYT have made me much less inclined to trust reporters when there's a lack of verification. "Unnamed sources" or "it has been learned" no longer cut the mustard with me. )

So thus far each memos is attested to by one news organ. I'd much rather see two unconnected news organizations doing stories on one memo---that's impress me more than the supposed existence of two, each with only a single source...

[Inquartata]

The Congress has oversight over the executive branch.

To an extent, but this does not go so far as to allow it to monopolize the time of the Executive or his advisors and agents.

The Congress allows the executive to interpret and implement its directives

The Congress does not "allow" any such thing---these are powers expressly granted by the Constitution and cannot be withdrawn by Congress. The Legislative branch was not set up to be a superior organ, to which the other two Branches are subsidiary or subservient. The President represents the will of the people fully as much as do the various Senators and representatives, perhaps more so inasmuch as he is chosen by ALL the people, not just those of a particular state or district alone...

but it is a long standing right of the Congress to call members of the executive before it to explain how they are fulfilling their responsibilities....

That a process is of long standing does not in itself seem to mean much in government circles. For instance, it was a matter of long standing to permit the President the right to name and receive a straight confirmation vote on judicial appointees, too, and yet the minority Party in the Senate has suddenly discovered its right to the unprecedented filibuster to balk that process. Though many decry this novel use of an old tactic, they do not claim that it is outside the rules simply because the previous process was of "long standing"...

And the root of that is in the Constitution, thank you very much.

I'd be grateful if you could point out where the Constitution expressly says any such thing.

It's possible to assert that just about anything has its "roots" in the Constitution, which is why there is such a lively business in interpreting the document for the Supreme Court and legal scholars generally.

YOU may believe that the constitution somehow implies that Cabinet officers who are nowhere mentioned in that document and the offices of whom many did not even exist when it was drafted must be at the beck and call of members of another Branch. This does not make it so. And I would argue that the "long standing" of the principle of executive privilege flies directly in the face of any such assertion.

From Article II, Section 2:

"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but [b]the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments[/quote]. "

This is the nearest thing I could find to an enablement of Congressional control of Executive subordinates---and even this specifies that the Congress shall enjoy the right of advise and consent only in the appointment of such subordinates, NOT that it shall retain ongoing management or supervisory powers...again, if I am missing something I welcome having the specific authorizing verbiage pointed out to me.

And me, I'm glad that someone is watching the candy store.

Unfortunately, it's a 5-year-old with a sweet tooth. The Congress is no more inherently trustworthy than is the President. They are all politicians and are more alike than makes for comfort.

[Inquartata]

What I object to is whenever someone asks him a question on a subsection of current affairs (ie. how many people have been tortured), he answers with some form of "I don't know". Damnit, he's SecDef. It's his business to know, especially when he's about to be questioned by people about. This leads me to believe that he is either a) completely incompetent or b) willfully hiding things to prevent further political damage. Neither of these make me happy.

Have you any idea of the enormous size and complexity of the DoD, much less of its interactions with other agencies such as State, CIA, NSA, GSA, etc? Do you think any one man can possibly know everything that's going on in an organization like that on a daily basis? ( Do you think Mike Massik knows everything that's going on in every corner of every Division of the USFA? )

And do you think he can anticipate every question that may be put to him, particularly in venues like the Congress or with members of the press, both of which delight in the "gotcha" and the sprung surprise?

No one possesses the sort of omniscience you demand. Your expectations are simply too high for any mortal to meet...

[Inquartata]

Constitution explicitly states that any and all treaties the U.S. enters into are to be considered as equivalent in stature to the Constitution.

Excuse me---where?

[daeceg]

Excuse me---where?

Article VI
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. "
-emphasis added.

[daeceg]

And do you think he can anticipate every question that may be put to him, particularly in venues like the Congress or with members of the press, both of which delight in the "gotcha" and the sprung surprise?

No one possesses the sort of omniscience you demand. Your expectations are simply too high for any mortal to meet...

How many people have been tortured is a 'gotcha' question? When you're having a press conference to talk about the photos...when you say you haven't seen the photos a week after the story breaks....that's willful ignorance.

Now-I do understand Rumsfeld not knowing how many people were tortured. But the answer he should have given is "I don't know the number, but we are investigating these claims very seriously." I do not know what he actually thought of the incidents. But at the very least, he should have the good sense to appear to be embarassed about it all.

[daeceg]

[QUOTE=Inquartata]But HAVE there been "new, different facts"? Everything seems to trace back to one media organization, which printed a story about a memo saying thus and such. Without any independent confirmation that the memo actually said thus and such in so many words, or indeed that it even really existed. ( I am willing to accept that the memos exist, in some form, though I wonder how these journalists supposedly got their hands on them---recent events involving concocted stories in such previously reputable organs as the NYT have made me much less inclined to trust reporters when there's a lack of verification. "Unnamed sources" or "it has been learned" no longer cut the mustard with me. )[quote]

But that's how Bush justified the Iraq war in the first place!
Let's see:
uranium ore from Niger.
Aluminum tubes for centrifuges.
Mobile biological warfare labs.
Tony Blair' "launch in 45 minutes" speech.
The presence of a WMD stockpile. (which was denied by the former head of the program-who defected)
Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. (you know, a poll conducted a few months ago showed that more people who watched Fox News believed that a. WMDs had been found in Iraq and b. Hussein was responsible for Sept. 11 than people who got news from any other source mentioned)

Come on: every justification for the war that Bush has given us has fallen apart. "Iraq is in violation of U.N. sanctions." Great-so is Israel. "Iraq maintains illegal stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons." So do we. Plus we get ourselves into the wonderful logical conundrum:
You violate UN sanctions, so we have to invade you in violation of the Security Council's directives to restore respect for the United Nations....

Huh?

[Philistine]

Article VI
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. "
-emphasis added.

Actually, this just means that treaties are on a par with federal law--both win out over state law.

However, the Constitution still wins out over a treaty (just as at wins out over federal law). Thus, Congress cannot ratify a treaty which would violate the Constitution (or at least those terms in violation would be void as unconstitutional).

--Philistine

[daeceg]

umm..."supreme law of the land"...is the Constitution...if a treaty is to be considered the "supreme law of the land" as well, it has to be equivalent, right?

If A=B and B=C then A=C.

[Artisan]

[QUOTE=daeceg]

Come on: every justification for the war that Bush has given us has fallen apart. ...
Huh?

Except one: Saddam was a bad guy.

[Philistine]

umm..."supreme law of the land"...is the Constitution...if a treaty is to be considered the "supreme law of the land" as well, it has to be equivalent, right?

If A=B and B=C then A=C.

Nope.

It's more if A, B & C are all D, it's not necessarily true that A=B=C. E.g. Men, apes and dolphins are the smartest animals, does not mean they are equally intelligent. Or, as the Supreme Court held:

It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. 32 In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty

Reid v. Covert http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001a.htm

--Philistine

[Philistine]

But HAVE there been "new, different facts"? Everything seems to trace back to one media organization, which printed a story about a memo saying thus and such. Without any independent confirmation that the memo actually said thus and such in so many words, or indeed that it even really existed. ( I am willing to accept that the memos exist, in some form, though I wonder how these journalists supposedly got their hands on them---recent events involving concocted stories in such previously reputable organs as the NYT have made me much less inclined to trust reporters when there's a lack of verification. "Unnamed sources" or "it has been learned" no longer cut the mustard with me. )

So thus far each memos is attested to by one news organ. I'd much rather see two unconnected news organizations doing stories on one memo---that's impress me more than the supposed existence of two, each with only a single source...

Which memos are you referring to?

The "torture" memos?

8/1/02 Bybee Memo and 3/6/03 Working Group Memo.

Their existence has been confirmed by the administration.

They were leaked the way everything gets leaked.

--Philistine

[daeceg]

Except one: Saddam was a bad guy.

Oh, yeah-forgot about that one. 8-)
Honestly, though, I think the real problem is that he wasn't our bad man anymore. He wasn't very nice 30 years ago when the US backed his play for power.

[Inquartata]

Article VI
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. "
-emphasis added.

"I do no think dat passage means wat you tink it does".

Reading it as you do, any law of the United States which is deemed Constitutional would have to be considered of equal potency to the Constitution itself. By extension, then, any law made thereafter would have to be congruent with these secondary laws; any made still later would not be able to conflict in any way with the tertiary ones; and so on. No new stream of legal thinking could ever gain currency.

The Constitution itself is the ultimate code in the US. Traffic ordinances are Constitutional, but are not themselves of Constitutional significance...

[Inquartata]

How many people have been tortured is a 'gotcha' question?

No, this is a reductio argument, it has nothing to do with any specific question, or the legitimacy of any specific question. It has to do with the legitimacy of questioning, period.

By your logic Congress can summon any appointee of the Executive and question him about anything, as long and as often as they please. This, taken to its ultimate conclusion, could result in their sitting before committees 16 hours every day, leaving them no time to pursue their real duties and paralyzing the Executive entirely. Not likely the Founders would have given the Legislative Branch that much power.

When you're having a press conference to talk about the photos...when you say you haven't seen the photos a week after the story breaks....that's willful ignorance.

He who gets to define terms controls the conclusions. I do not concur in the inescapability of your definitions, and I do not share your conclusions.

I do not know what he actually thought of the incidents. But at the very least, he should have the good sense to appear to be embarassed about it all.

Good sense? It is seldom good sense to show weakness or uncertainty in politics...

What he felt and what he could afford to reveal publicly are not necessarily the same things.

[Inquartata]

But that's how Bush justified the Iraq war in the first place!
Let's see:
uranium ore from Niger.
Aluminum tubes for centrifuges.
Mobile biological warfare labs.
Tony Blair' "launch in 45 minutes" speech.
The presence of a WMD stockpile. (which was denied by the former head of the program-who defected)
Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. (you know, a poll conducted a few months ago showed that more people who watched Fox News believed that a. WMDs had been found in Iraq and b. Hussein was responsible for Sept. 11 than people who got news from any other source mentioned)

I'm afraid I may have lost your point. Are you saying that the Administration made it's decisions based on "unnamed sources", or...?

Come on: every justification for the war that Bush has given us has fallen apart.

Even if true, this does not demonstrate that his motives were anything but honest. It would go to prove only that he ( and massive amounts of intelligence ) were wrong, not mendacious.

"Iraq is in violation of U.N. sanctions." Great-so is Israel.

Israel was not attempting to shoot down Allied planes on a regular basis.

"Iraq maintains illegal stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons." So do we

We do not use them.

Plus we get ourselves into the wonderful logical conundrum:
You violate UN sanctions, so we have to invade you in violation of the Security Council's directives to restore respect for the United Nations....

Huh?

You forgot one: defense of the US. Whether one believed it or not, the opinion that Iraq posed a threat to the safety of the nation was a viable one, albeit it seems to have turned out to have been incorrect or overstated. Self-defense supersedes UN control----the UN itself conceds as much.

[Inquartata]

They were leaked the way everything gets leaked.

--Philistine

We do not know this. We are told only that "they were obtained", and we have no way to verify this, much less the accuracy or completeness of any version thus "obtained".

If I say to you "It has been learned from sources in the Kerry campaign that Kerry is having a homosexual affair with one of his staffers", have I a right to expect credulity from you without verification? It seems that this is the standard many media organs expect to exercise. They expect that their stories will be taken as true on their say-so alone...but with each new revelation of reporters inventing stories, sources and the like, my faith in that standard weakens.