Voice of Revolution

Fight for Empowerment

Reject Bush Demand for All to Stand Behind the Military

President George W. Bush used his State of the Union speech to emphasize that the “only option” for the world is for all to “stand behind the U.S. military and its vital mission” to secure U.S. world empire. Targeting what he branded “failed states,” regions “overwhelmed by poverty, corruption and despair,” he emphasized that U.S. brutality and aggression will increase. He said the U.S. “will act boldly,” will “remain on the offensive,” and “will not retreat from the world and we will never surrender to evil.”

It is significant that Bush specifically directed the statement about standing behind the military to Congress. He said, “Members of Congress: however we feel about the decisions and debates of the past, our nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies and stand behind the American military in its vital mission.” He also said that decisions about Iraq will not be made by “politicians in Washington,” — that is by Congress — but by the military. He added that he will not allow differences between Congress and the President to “harden into anger.”

Given the demand that Congress stand behind the military and that political decisions, such as waging war, are to be made by the military, it is not difficult to see that Bush is acting to replace the failed Constitutional arrangements with those that put the military at the center of all life. The arrangements of state are to be those of military rule and a Commander in Chief — with the powers to spy on, detain, torture, kill and wage war against all those who do not submit to this rule, whether at home or abroad. And this includes members of Congress.

Bush, and the factions he represents, are letting it be known that he will act to block opposition to his dictate within Congress before it “hardens into anger,” such as impeachment or similar actions. He is calling on the various factions within the ruling circles, represented in Congress, to unite behind him. His administration’s various comments, that those involved in leaking the National Security Agency (NSA) program and those calling for immediate withdrawal are “aiding the enemy” and a threat to “national security,” also indicate how he will target Congress and any officials that express differences.

Bush is giving this speech at a time when existing Constitutional arrangements, between the executive and Congress, between federal, state and local governments and police agencies, between the government and the people, have all failed. Given that in the past, when Constitutional arrangements also failed and the factional fights within the ruling circles led to civil war, Bush’s comments in this direction are important. He is calling on the opposing factions to unite behind him and support military rule as the “only option,” to prevent civil war and achieve world empire. Bush also gives every appearance of taking decisive action in this direction in 2006, which he said will be a “decisive year” that “determines the future and character” of the country.

Perhaps to emphasize the direction of a police state, even before Bush began to speak, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, invited by a Congressperson, was arrested simply for having a T-shirt that asked how many more must die in Iraq. As well, the wife of a representative who supports the war was escorted out for having a T-shirt that said, “Support Our Troops.” In this manner, the notion being imposed is the police agencies determine what, where and when expression of opinion is allowed.

Bush is taking the country and the world in a very dangerous direction. The more than five year U.S. war of terrorism against the peoples has made clear that this direction is not an option. It solves no problem, not the problem of security, not the problem of meeting the needs of the world’s peoples, not the problem of building fraternal relations. Arrangements of military rule can only take the U.S. and world backward, backward to the slavery and genocide the U.S. was founded on, backward to rule by military kings, backward to civil war and world war.

New arrangements are required and new arrangements are being built. It is the working class and people that are tackling this problem, as can be seen in the efforts in New Orleans to affirm the rights to return and rebuild, as can be seen in the fierce defense of rights here and worldwide, in the work to oppose war and aggression, in the demand to drive Bush out and bring forward governance where the people decide. This is the alternative.

[TOP]

For Your Information

Bush State of the Union

President George W. Bush opened his State of the Union speech by speaking directly to Congress on the issue of differences and debate between Congress and the Office of the President. Calling for a “civil tone,” he said, “our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger.” He told Congress, “In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom — or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life.” He then said, “The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership — so the United States of America will continue to lead.”

Bush reiterated this demand for U.S. leadership throughout the speech, emphasizing, “The only alternative to American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and anxious world.” He said it is necessary to reject “isolationism and retreat” as they only lead to “danger and decline.”

He then spoke to those he considers “enemies of freedom,” targeting all “failed and oppressive” states. He specifically named Syria, Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), as he has in the past, and added Myanmar and Zimbabwe. Iraq and Afghanistan also were branded as “failed states” and Bush again justified U.S. invasion on this basis. He said that the U.S. will continue to “act boldly in freedom’s cause,” and “remain on the offensive.”

Bush also targeted what he called “radical Islam,” branding it as an “ideology of terror and death.” He said those supporting this ideology have the aim “to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world.” Bush said the U.S. will not allow this and will not leave “an assaulted world to fend for itself.” He reiterated, “The United States will not retreat from the world, we will never surrender to evil.”

Claiming to speak with candor about Iraq, Bush said, “A sudden withdrawal of our forces would abandon our Iraqi allies to death and prison…put men like bin Laden and Zarqawi in charge of a strategic country…and show that a pledge from America means little.” He then emphasized, “Members of Congress: however we feel about the decisions and debates of the past, our nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies and stand behind the American military in its vital mission.” He underlined that decisions about Iraq will not be made by politicians in Washington — that is by the civilian government and particularly Congress — but by the military.

Bush said the government will “remain on the offensive against terrorism here at home.” He brought out that “this nation has superb professionals in law enforcement, intelligence, the military and homeland security.” In this manner, the government is saying that there is no longer any distinction between civilian and military forces acting against the people inside the country.

Bush took the U.S. threats and war plans against the peoples a step further than in the past. He repeated that the U.S. will organize for “regime change” and “not allow” what he terms “failed and oppressive states,” to block U.S. empire building. He said that regions “overwhelmed by poverty, corruption and despair are sources of terrorism” and thus subject to the “compassion,” of U.S. dictate and use of force.

Bush used the State of the Union to openly dictate the internal policies of other governments. This is consistent with current U.S. strategy to achieve “full spectrum dominance,” using force to bring all governments and their policies in line with U.S. interests. In Palestine, for example, where the U.S. said recent elections were “free and fair,” Bush said that the newly elected government led by Hamas “must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace.” He is using the blackmail of stopping already agreed on funding and refusing to recognize the new government.

Bush dictated what Iran’s policies must be, claiming Iran’s support for those branded as “terrorists” by the U.S., in Palestine and Lebanon, “must come to an end.” The U.S. will “not allow” Iran to have nuclear energy, while it does fund and support Israel’s nuclear weapons program. The Iranians are also being blackmailed with increasing threats of a U.S. military air strike.

Bush also targeted “friends,” like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. He told them they must make reforms and “open paths of peaceful change.” Bush said the U.S. will continue to “rally the world to confront” all these “threats” to the U.S.

In this manner, the U.S. is claiming that not only can it invade at will, but that it can dictate internal policies of all governments. And these demands are being made within the context of the “one option,” of -submitting to U.S. world empire. He made clear that the brutal impunity and aggression of U.S. imperialism will be stepped up in the coming period, not only against those branded “enemies,” but friends, allies, even Congress.

Bush also presented two main proposals, one concerning energy and the other his “Competitiveness Initiative.” While the oil monopolies announced record profits, with Exxon/Mobil’s $32 billion a single-year record, Bush proposed a 22 percent increase in funding (from the public treasury) for monopolies to research and develop “clean energy.” Bush said the funding will help reduce oil imports from “unstable parts of the world.” The president did not bring out that oil imports from the Middle East now represents only 11 percent of U.S. imports, the majority comes from Mexico and Canada.

The proposal, in part, serves to cover a main aim of the U.S. in the Middle East, which is to control this strategic region, so as to dominate Asia. Positioning military bases while also depriving Europe and Japan of oil from the region are a critical part of this.

Bush’s “American Competitive Initiative,” is also a means to turn more of the public treasury over to the monopolies, also by funding their research and by providing tax breaks for research by the monopolies.

Bush concluded his speech saying elected -officials have “made a pledge to be worthy of public responsibility — and that is a pledge we must never forget, never dismiss and never betray.” He then mentions that the federal government has “committed $85 billion to the people of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans. We are removing debris, repairing highways and building stronger levees. We are providing business loans and housing assistance.”

He did not mention that a minimum of 300 million cubic yards of debris remains uncollected, the government is now evicting an estimated 26,000 families from hotel rooms, again making them homeless. The vast majority of Katrina survivors remain scattered across the country because their homes are not being rebuilt. The majority of homeowners have also been denied loans to rebuild and denied insurance claims. The government has not even begun to rebuild the levees and the next hurricane season begins in June. Government officials say a minimum of $200 billion is needed to even begin addressing these problems.

With the failure of government evident to all, Bush said, “let us work for the day when all Americans are protected by justice, equal in hope and rich in opportunity.”

[TOP]

Letter On Bush’s State of the Union Address

What’s So Dangerous About T-shirts?

- Voice of Revolution Activist -

President Bush’s recent State of the Union address is significant for reasons beyond the content of his speech. During the address, police removed two women on the basis of the content of their T-shirts. Cindy Sheehan, anti-war activist, invited to the address by a Congressperson, was arrested for her T-shirt that asked how many more must die in Iraq. This, many will say, is to be expected. Yet, the wife of a representative who supports the war was escorted out for her T-shirt that read, “Support Our Troops.”

Taken together, these expulsions suggest that the government is moving beyond suppression of views or opinions it does not like, to identifying any activity designed to influence or represent public opinion as a potential “security risk.” It indicates at this time the government considers views — any views — as dangerous.

Having a view presumes a role for individual and collective conscience. Opinions, and acting to share them with others, presumes the right to form an opinion in the first place, and organize to share that opinion, to engage in persuading others of the merits of the opinion. Affirming one’s views about something like the Iraq war at a public event like the State of the Union affirms a role in governing not only for that individual, but also for the public as a whole since it is public opinion that is the object of such actions. In this way, the targeting of these two women by police for the public expression of their views is not only an attack on them, but on the public as a whole.

These opinion-forming activities affirm that struggles to influence public opinion are a legitimate political activity and, in fact, a right. They also affirm a role for the public and its opinion in governance. These rights are registered as freedom of speech and assembly in the U.S. Constitution.

Police stand as the legitimate use of force in a society. Putting police in charge of who can present what views at what time in a public arena is to replace public debate and deliberation with the use of force, including within Congress itself. By forcibly removing the two women, in the public gallery of the House of Representatives, invited by members of Congress, the police forces were eliminating the role of public opinion in governance.

In particular, the U.S. Constitution set up arrangements where conflicts between the state and people, regarding freedom of speech and assembly, are sorted out by legislative bodies enacting laws and the courts, not the police. Police only come into play to enforce the decision of the courts. Notice how putting police in charge in this manner places them above the civil authority, above the elected officials and the public institutions they control, such as Congress.

Finally, placing police in charge of managing the expression of opinion suggests that the state now identifies as a threat any opinion-forming activity not authorized by the state. This has profound consequences. It means that individual conscience is identified as a threat. A conscience in a person or a people is necessarily a rejection of absolute authority or tyranny and a claim to think and to be.

The suppression of these two women’s opinions reveals how dangerous the present situation is. The views of people and their public expression are now deemed a security risk that warrant the use of force by police under executive command.

Evidence of the abject failure of the U.S. system of governance, this is nothing short of an open move toward tyranny, of open rule by the police and military forces over and against civilian authority and civilians themselves. It is in fact the government and their police that threaten the public, and the growing and strengthening of the peoples forces that can contend with this most dangerous and backward looking development.

[TOP]

Interview with CPC(M-L) Leader Sandra L. Smith

Reject Dangerous Notion that Equilibrium Will Come from Uniting Under Bush

We reprint below the last portion of an interview with the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)’s national leader, Sandra L. Smith, on the significance of the Canadian elections, with a particular focus on the U.S. Among other things, it elaborates on the dangerous argument being given by the ruling circles, in the U.S., Britain and Canada, that balance and equilibrium can be restored in the world by uniting behind President George W. Bush. Bush’s State of the Union also gave this argument, claiming there is only one option, to “stand behind the American military.”

In Canada, Stephen Harper, of the Conservatives, will be the new prime minister, with a minority government. We urge our readers to review the whole interview, and additional materials on the Canadian elections, available on our webpage, usmlo.org, and at mlpc.ca. (The interview was conducted by The Marxist-Leninist Daily, on-line newspaper of CPC(M-L), cpcml.ca)

* * *

The Marxist-Leninist: What is the “change” and what is the “accountability” in the Harper agenda?

Sandra L. Smith: [...] In his victory speech, Harper said: “Despite the divisions and discord of an election, the ability to peacefully change and renew our nation’s leadership remains one of our country’s great strengths.”

The notion of peaceful change is not at all discussed — for instance, how the ruling class is going about achieving in other countries the “peaceful change” which he says we have in Canada. There is nothing peaceful about what is taking place in Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti or what they threaten to do to Iran, Palestine, Cuba, Venezuela and other countries if the governments and people there don’t submit to their definition of democracy and a raison d’état which falls in line with the interests of the Anglo-American imperialists.

TML: You said how decisions are taken, why and by whom, remain hidden. This seems to deal with the permanent state of exception, which has been declared where we see a clash between rule of law and the committing of all kinds of crimes by making them “legal.” Is this the case?

SLS: Yes, but what is significant is the self-serving arguments to justify what cannot be justified.

The main ideologues of the bourgeoisie in Canada — be they Liberal such as the Axworthy brothers or Michael Ignatieff, be they Conservative such as Harper’s man Tom Flanagan, or others from the Fraser Institute or the Canadian Council of Chief Executives — are all arguing in the same vein as the discourse taking place in the U.S. and Britain. All of them argue on the basis of reactionary premises.

The essence of the arguments put forward in Canada, such as “responsibility to protect” or “human security,” oppose the right of nations to self-determination, just as their arguments about security trample civil rights. An understanding of what is taking place in the United States can guide us in our study. There a dangerous notion is being put forward that a new equilibrium can be established by creating a balance between continuity and change.

A claim is made by the U.S. administration, for example, that these are exceptional times marked by perpetual war, and that by reason of state the President must wield executive powers in order to preserve American liberties, law and order, the American state. The claim is specifically that the Constitution (being the continuity with the past) vests the President with these powers under its article 2 section 2: “The President shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into service by country.” And secondly, these special discretionary powers derive from Congress’ “Authorization to use force” issued following 9/11 which it claimed gives legal sanction to proscribe “checks and balances” established by the Constitution in “normal times.”

According to the argument, balance and equilibrium will result from uniting under Bush, who is given dictatorial powers because of claims of “threats” at home and abroad. On this basis, the claim is made that torture, assassination, spying, kidnapping, secret courts, secret imprisonment, regime change, destruction of peoples, threats of aggression and wars of occupation and even the use of nuclear weapons, etc. are all carried out legally, under rule of law, and are therefore necessary in restoring balance in the world.

Many voices including from the establishment have been raised in opposition, and the Bush administration has been called illegal, actively destroying American democracy and the Constitution, controlling and intimidating through arbitrariness and violence. Al Gore recently quoted the dean of the Yale Law School on the “previously unrecognized powers”: “If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution.” Bush with the huge concentration of power in the executive, has personally assumed the status of an absolute monarch, and based on this position claims that all abuse of power can be carried out with impunity.

The views of critics, focusing on all these arbitrarily assumed powers, the lack of accountability, secrecy, etc., taken together offer a description of the royal prerogative. It is similar to the absolutist King of England James I, 1616: “If there falls out a question of my prerogative or mystery of state deal not with it, till you consult with the king or his council, or both; for they are transcendent matters.”

And the arguments of Locke and Montesquieu on the prerogative might find resonance with the critics’ views of Bush arguments on surveillance and crusades against purported “internal and foreign enemies”: Locke linked the prerogative to what he termed federative powers in opposition to the “design of foreign princes” and insurrections within a country, claiming those who participate in rebellion are in the same position as those in line with foreign powers. Often examples from American history are given in comparison with Bush, for instance the 1798 Alien-Sedition Acts, the World War I anti-subversive and sedition laws and the 1919 Palmer Raids and “red scare,” the Japanese-Americans incarceration in concentration camps, McCarthyism, Cointelpro, etc. Examples of the dictatorial powers of empire-building, militarism, fascism, etc. out of the past are also often compared to the activities of the Bush administration.

In this manner, a certain impression can be created that history moves in cycles, through extremes, and then, as Gore suggested, “the country recovered its equilibrium and absorbed the lessons learned in a recurring cycle of excess and regret.” At the same time, Gore and all other such critics are in agreement with Bush about “threats” to the U.S. and the need for the President to have expanded discretionary powers, including the use of secret courts and judges, which cannot be given a precise legal basis, but should be pursued under the “rule of law” and within constitutional “checks and balances.” Some of the leading critics are merely demanding that Bush go through the Congress to acquire the powers so that they are conferred “legally.” And yet Gore fears, “There are reasons for concern this time around that conditions may be changing and that the cycle may not repeat itself.” The venerable exercise of the “separation of powers,” the constitutionally sanctioned procedures of government must be brought into balance with the changing times.

The old arrangements, procedures and processes of the status quo are being thrown to the wind, while all principles and achievements are under radical assault. The notions of equilibrium through cycles of history and through the balance between continuity and change are alike, and as such are dangerous illusions: they cover-up the actual disequilibrium that is destroying the already existing social fabric while negating the actual interests of the people of all countries who are in dire need of achieving a new equilibrium. Such a thing cannot and will not be achieved by the contending factions within the ruling class because their interests lie with reaction. Only the working class and people whose interests lie with progress can manage such a thing.

In this regard, these old notions of equilibrium and balance are used to cover up the actual historical trends and situation and the need for change. They cover up the need to activate the social and political forces, which can bring it about. By confounding continuity and change and what’s absolute and what’s transitional, these notions serve the reason of state of the usurpers.

The reason of state of the holders of the royal prerogative is in actuality the basis of the unreason of state, of irrationalism. Irrationalism keeps afloat archaic notions and feelings of perseveration, the compulsive repetition of responses to experiences in situations where they are no longer appropriate. Examples of this are the treatment of Quebec, of the peoples of the First Nations, of the youth as a law and order problem, of minority rights, of the peoples of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean as white man’s burden.

This atmosphere of irrationalism opposes reasoning through and arguing out the modern definitions that can point to a way out of the disequilibrium by recognizing that all persons are born to society, and by virtue of this there must be the recognition of their claims on society, and the guarantee by government to secure the conditions by which these claims can be satisfied. Without modern definitions, old notions will hold sway with passions and interests inflamed, finding no relief by which they can be sorted out and harmonized.

In opposition to this state of disequilibrium, it should be recognized that equilibrium is inseparable from motion. Motion is inseparable from matter. All things and phenomena are matter in motion. Without recognizing the basis of change, development and motion and opening a path for society’s progress on that basis, the crisis will be exacerbated with dire consequences for the peoples both at home and abroad.

This is the framework within which the MLPC sets its program to open society’s path to progress.

[TOP]

Bush's State of the Union Address

- Chris Meyer, PalestineChronicle.com -

On Tuesday night, President Bush gave a well-written speech. Too bad it is all just part of an enormously destructive and self-serving fantasy that pervades the halls of the rich and powerful. What does reality really look like?

Bush spoke of a young enlisted man who gave his life for us. I am sad to report that no soldier has given his or her life for me. U.S. soldiers are giving their lives so that U.S. owned and aligned oil firms can control Iraqi oil. They are giving their lives so that industries in the military-industrial complex can make a killing manufacturing more weapons. They are dying so that U.S. construction firms can get fat, uncontested contracts to 'rebuild' Iraq. All these businesses are heavily represented by key members of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government: Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld etc. The freedom that President Bush so ardently desires to spread across the planet is the freedom of U.S. based corporations to rape, pillage and plunder with impunity.

I am sad to say this, but it is the plain and simple truth. I did NOT send U.S. soldiers to kill and be killed overseas; Bush did. My job, and the job of every responsible citizen, is to try to bring them home and mend their wounds. The slaughter of untold thousands and tens of thousands of world citizens by U.S. forces overseas will only cause resentment to rain down upon our children's heads. Furthermore, I consider the innocent victims of U.S. aggression to be my friends and family. I fiercely resent that thousands of my tax dollars are used to buy weapons and pay U.S. citizens to kill my international friends and family.

On the home front, the economic noose is being tightened around the average citizen's neck. Tax policies favoring Bush's wealthy constituents are being promoted. Universal health care, a common feature of all other industrialized nations, is not even a gleam in the eye of our national politicians. Even Medicaid, the program designed to take care of our most vulnerable citizens, is being systematically destroyed. I see cutbacks in education devastating my own community's schools. Social Security is constantly under the threat of being sold off to Wall Street, and the sky-rocketing national debt will be a back-breaking burden for our children. Meanwhile, our prison systems are overflowing with people of color: a ghastly testament to our country's continuing sins of economic and racial injustice.

I urge my fellow citizens to open their eyes. Read some alternative press. It cannot hurt you. You'll find it more interesting and mentally challenging than the predictable storylines of the mainstream press.

But above all, be prepared to think for yourself. Use your common sense. Consider following the money...

[TOP]

The Bush War Economy: Exporting Jobs and Security

- Bruce K. Gagnon, counterpunch -

Ford Motor Company announced On January 23 that it will be cutting as many as 30,000 jobs and will shut down 14 factories as a result of continuing losses.

Ford, now hires about 123,000 workers in North America and lost $5.5 billion in those operations in 2005.

General Motors Corporation last year decided to close all or part of 12 plants and 30,000 jobs in the U.S. by 2008.

With China's recent introduction of a car selling for $10,000 in the U.S., Ford and GM have hit the wall. They have been building big SUV's in recent years and now that gas prices are rising dramatically their sales are dropping significantly. The workers on the China car are making $3.50 an hour compared to the good wages and benefits at the unionized auto plants in the U.S.

Television manufacturing in China pays workers there about 50 cents an hour. Thus TV manufacturing is virtually non-existent in the U.S. any more. On and on the story goes ......

Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld has a "strategy guy" by the name of Thomas Barnett. Barnett's job is to teach "military transformation" to high level Pentagon officers and CIA operatives. I've seen Barnett on C-SPAN several times during the past year saying that we are not going to have industrial jobs in the U.S. anymore. The big corporations will move overseas where production costs can be significantly lowered.

America's role in corporate globalization will be "security export" says Barnett. We will build the weapons systems and send our children into endless war in order to protect the profits of the corporate elite. Under corporate globalization, Barnett says, there are places called "the non-integrating gap" that have not yet submitted to the authority of the new world order. The job of the U.S. will be to go into the "non-integrating gap" and make sure these countries comply with the dictates of corporate globalization.

Barnett has identified the gap as the Middle East (where we fight in Iraq today), Central Asia (where we are now building six permanent bases in Afghanistan), Africa (where Barnett says the U.S. will be fighting for oil 20 years from now), and Latin America (where you have Venezuela and others not carrying the water for big business).

Barnett says that the U.S. won't do international treaties anymore because they would limit the ability of the Pentagon to do preemptive first-strike attack on any country that is not complying with corporate globalization.

What does this mean for social spending back home? As the job base dries up in the U.S. so will the tax base at the local-state-federal levels. There will increasingly be cuts in social programs. Education will be cut and privatized so that only the children of the rich can afford, without incurring massive debt, a college education. Thus the only real job prospects for many young people will be in the military — endless warriors. Thus the Pentagon's statement that there will be no need for a draft. When the military is the only job around legions of poor and working class kids will have few other options.

This is the not-so-bright picture that the corporate dominated government of the U.S. is creating for us. It will become a reality if we don't begin to protest now against this re- introduction of feudalism. We must fight to have a fair tax system in the U.S. that does not let the rich, powerful, and corporate elite get away with not paying taxes. We must fight for public education and affordable college options for our kids. We must fight to create new jobs in manufacturing sustainable technologies like solar, wind power and public mass transit systems. We must fight for health care for all. And we must escalate our educational work and action now, before it becomes too late.

Bruce K. Gagnon is Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.

[TOP]

No President Is Above the Law

- Senator Robert Byrd -

Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of power by an overzealous President. It has become apparent that this Administration has engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our Country’s law-abiding citizens, and against our Constitution.

We have been stunned to hear reports about the Pentagon gathering information and creating databases to spy on ordinary Americans whose only sin is choosing to exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. Those Americans who choose to question the Administration’s flawed policy in Iraq are labeled by this Administration as “domestic terrorists.”

We now know that the F.B.I.’s use of National Security Letters on American citizens has increased one hundred fold, requiring tens of thousands of individuals to turn over personal information and records. These letters are issued without prior judicial review, and provide no real means for an individual to challenge a permanent gag order.

Through news reports, we have been shocked to learn of the CIA’s practice of rendition, and the so-called “black sites,” secret locations in foreign countries where abuse and interrogation have been exported to escape the reach of U.S. laws protecting against human rights abuses.

We know that Vice President Dick Cheney has asked for exemptions for the CIA from the language contained in the McCain torture amendment banning cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. Thank God his pleas have been rejected by this Congress.

Now comes the stomach-churning revelation that through an executive order, President Bush has circumvented both the Congress and the courts. He has usurped the Third Branch of government - the branch charged with protecting the civil liberties of our people - by directing the National Security Agency to intercept and eavesdrop on the phone conversations and e-mails of American citizens without a warrant, which is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. He has stiff-armed the People’s Branch of government. He has rationalized the use of domestic, civilian surveillance with a flimsy claim that he has such authority because we are at war. The executive order, which has been acknowledged by the President, is an end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it unlawful for any official to monitor the communications of an individual on American soil without the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

What is the President thinking? Congress has provided for the very situations which the President is blatantly exploiting. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, housed in the Department of Justice, reviews requests for warrants for domestic surveillance. The Court can review these requests expeditiously and in times of great emergency. In extreme cases, where time is of the essence and national security is at stake, surveillance can be conducted before the warrant is even applied for.

This secret court was established so that sensitive surveillance could be conducted, and information could be gathered without compromising the security of the investigation. The purpose of the FISA Court is to balance the government’s role in fighting the war on terror with the Fourth Amendment rights afforded to each and every American.

The American public is given vague and empty assurances by the President that amount to little more than “trust me.” But, we are a nation of laws and not of men. Where is the source of that authority he claims? I defy the Administration to show me where in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or the U.S. Constitution, they are allowed to steal into the lives of innocent America citizens and spy.

When asked yesterday what the source of this authority was, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had no answer. Secretary Rice seemed to insinuate that eavesdropping on Americans was acceptable because FISA was an outdated law, and could not address the needs of the government in combating the new war on terror. This is a patent falsehood. The USA Patriot Act expanded FISA significantly, equipping the government with the tools it needed to fight terrorism. Further amendments to FISA were granted under the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 and the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In fact, in its final report, the 9/11 Commission noted that the removal of the pre-9/11 “wall” between intelligence officials and law enforcement was significant in that it “opened up new opportunities for cooperative action.”

The President claims that these powers are within his role as Commander in Chief. Make no mistake, the powers granted to the Commander in Chief are specifically those as head of the Armed Forces. These warrantless searches are conducted not against a foreign power, but against unsuspecting and unknowing American citizens. They are conducted against individuals living on American soil, not in Iraq or Afghanistan. There is nothing within the powers granted in the Commander in Chief clause that grants the President the ability to conduct clandestine surveillance of American civilians. We must not allow such groundless, foolish claims to stand.

The President claims a boundless authority through the resolution that authorized the war on those who perpetrated the September 11th attacks. But that resolution does not give the President unchecked power to spy on our own people. That resolution does not give the Administration the power to create covert prisons for secret prisoners. That resolution does not authorize the torture of prisoners to extract information from them. That resolution does not authorize running black-hole secret prisons in foreign countries to get around U.S. law. That resolution does not give the President the powers reserved only for kings and potentates.

I continue to be shocked and astounded by the breadth with which the Administration undermines the constitutional protections afforded to the people, and the arrogance with which it rebukes the powers held by the Legislative and Judicial Branches. The President has cast off federal law, enacted by Congress, often bearing his own signature, as mere formality. He has rebuffed the rule of law, and he has trivialized and trampled upon the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed to Americans by the United States Constitution.

We are supposed to accept these dirty little secrets. We are told that it is irresponsible to draw attention to President Bush’s gross abuse of power and Constitutional violations. But what is truly irresponsible is to neglect to uphold the rule of law. We listened to the President speak last night on the potential for democracy in Iraq. He claims to want to instill in the Iraqi people a tangible freedom and a working democracy, at the same time he violates our own U.S. laws and checks and balances? President Bush called the recent Iraqi election “a landmark day in the history of liberty.” I dare say in this country we may have reached our own sort of landmark. Never have the promises and protections of Liberty seemed so illusory. Never have the freedoms we cherish seemed so imperiled.

These renegade assaults on the Constitution and our system of laws strike at the very core of our values, and foster a sense of mistrust and apprehension about the reach of government.

I am reminded of Thomas Payne’s famous words, “These are the times that try men’s souls.”

These astounding revelations about the bending and contorting of the Constitution to justify a grasping, irresponsible Administration under the banner of “national security” are an outrage. Congress can no longer sit on the sidelines. It is time to ask hard questions of the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the CIA. The White House should not be allowed to exempt itself from answering the same questions simply because it might assert some kind of “executive privilege” in order to avoid further embarrassment.

The practice of domestic spying on citizens should halt immediately. Oversight hearings need to be conducted. Judicial action may be in order. We need to finally be given answers to our questions: where is the constitutional and statutory authority for spying on American citizens, what is the content of these classified legal opinions asserting there is a legality in this criminal usurpation of rights, who is responsible for this dangerous and unconstitutional policy, and how many American citizens’ lives have been unknowingly affected?

December 19, 2005

[TOP]

Bush Is Not Listening to the Constitution

- Edward M. Kennedy -

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.

December 22, 2005