[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Observations on Washington-style democracy

[Morton K. Brussel]

FYI. More than one angry march is necessary…

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Emanuel Yi Pastreich" <epastreich at aya.yale.edu>
> Date: January 25, 2007 10:53:21 PM CST
> To: <epast at staff.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Observations on Washington-style democracy
> Reply-To: "Emanuel Yi Pastreich" <epastreich at aya.yale.edu>
>
> Observations on Washington-style democracy
>
> By Barry Grey in Washington, D.C.
> 24 January 2007
>
>  http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/wash-j24.shtml
>
> Political life in the US capital is increasingly an exercise in  
> deceit and self-delusion. It does not take long for an objective  
> observer to discern that behind the traditional forms of  
> parliamentary democracy—congressional debates, floor votes,  
> hearings, etc.—the machinery of a presidential dictatorship is  
> being consolidated and already operating in key areas of policy,  
> both foreign and domestic.
>
> The Bush administration has successfully asserted, due largely to  
> the compliance of a complicit and cowardly Democratic Party and a  
> corrupt media, a degree of unchecked and unaccountable power that  
> is unprecedented in US history. On the basis of the pseudo- 
> constitutional theory of the “unitary executive” and the supposed  
> war-time powers of the commander-in-chief (in the undeclared,  
> unlimited and phony “war on terror”), the right-wing clique around  
> the White House routinely violates constitutional norms and legal  
> statutes, snubs Congress and takes actions that flagrantly violate  
> the democratic rights of the American people.
>
> All those involved—administration officials, judges, congressmen,  
> the Washington press corps—are well aware of the advanced state of  
> decay of traditional democratic procedures and the buildup of  
> police-state forms of rule. Yet the outer trappings of  
> parliamentary process for the most part continue, by mutual consent  
> of all involved, in what amounts to a democratic Potemkin Village,  
> maintained in part to keep the people in the dark about the  
> imperiled state of their democratic rights.
>
> There are internal debates and conflicts, which can become heated  
> at times, about the wisdom, legality and propriety of the  
> administration’s more brazen assertions of absolute power, but such  
> disputes are never allowed to resonate in any significant way  
> beyond the narrow confines of the Washington establishment.
>
> Among themselves, in their offices, clubs and watering holes, the  
> denizens of the capital engage in gallows humor about the latest  
> administration outrage against democratic norms and the  
> constitutional principle of “checks and balances” between coequal  
> branches of government. But since they all have a stake in  
> maintaining the existing two-party political monopoly, through  
> which the financial-corporate elite asserts its basic interests,  
> and they all share an allegiance to American capitalism and its  
> imperialist aims around the world, they continue to play the game  
> as though nothing much had changed.
>
> Last Thursday’s appearance by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales  
> before the Senate Judiciary Committee provided the latest example  
> of administration stonewalling and contempt for Congress and the  
> impotence of the legislators.
>
> The day before the hearing, Gonzales notified the committee that  
> the administration had obtained authorization from one anonymous  
> member of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court  
> to continue its National Security Agency program of electronic  
> surveillance of Americans’ phone calls and e-mails. It was patently  
> obvious that this was a maneuver to provide a judicial fig leaf for  
> an illegal and unconstitutional invasion of privacy, close down  
> court challenges to the program, and provide Bush and other  
> administration officials with legal cover in the event of future  
> criminal action against them.
>
> At the Senate hearing, Gonzales flatly refused to answer questions  
> from committee members about the content of the authorization  
> granted by the unnamed FISA judge or any aspect of the ongoing  
> domestic spying program.
>
> In the course of his remarks, Democratic Committee Chairman Patrick  
> Leahy declared: “In the 32 years since I first came to the Senate,  
> during the era of Watergate and Vietnam, I have never seen a time  
> when our constitution and fundamental rights as Americans were more  
> threatened by their own government.”
>
> But what none of the government critics on the committee dared to  
> state was the obvious fact that the purpose of such domestic spying  
> programs is not to protect the American people against external  
> threats or terrorist attacks, but rather to prepare wholesale state  
> repression against opponents of the government’s policies.
>
> The previous week, the Senate Judiciary Committee had held a  
> hearing on the expansion of government data-mining programs that  
> provided some insight into the rapid buildup of a “big brother”  
> police-state apparatus.
>
> In his opening remarks, Leahy said, “The Bush administration has  
> dramatically increased its use of data mining technology, namely,  
> the collection and monitoring of wide volumes of personal,  
> sensitive data to identify patterns and relationships. Indeed, in  
> recent years the federal government’s use of data mining technology  
> has exploded, without congressional oversight or comprehensive  
> privacy safeguards.
>
> “According to a May, 2004 report by the General Accounting Office,  
> at least 52 different federal agencies are currently using data  
> mining technology. There are at least 199 different government data  
> mining programs that are operating or planned throughout the  
> federal government....
>
> “The overwhelming majority of them are used to collect and analyze  
> information about ordinary citizens.... [T]hey share this sensitive  
> personal information with foreign governments. They share it with  
> private employers. The one group they won’t share it with is  
> American citizens on whom they collect it.”
>
> One of the witnesses was former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, a  
> staunchly conservative Republican who played a prominent role in  
> the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Barr, a right-wing  
> libertarian and opponent of gun control with close ties to the  
> National Rifle Association, is a critic of government domestic  
> spying and data-mining programs. His testimony provided a stark  
> picture of the assault on democratic rights and the US Constitution.
>
> “As a former member of Congress,” he said in his written statement,  
> “I have been disappointed to see Congress shirk its responsibility  
> to the American people and sit silently by while the Constitution  
> is gutted of meaning....
>
> “Data mining presents many serious threats to the First, Second,  
> Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. That is nearly  
> half of the Bill of Rights! Where will this end? With the repeal of  
> the Constitution so that the White House won’t have to worry about  
> those inconvenient and troublesome laws any more?”
>
> Senator Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary  
> Committee, casually remarked in the course of the hearing, “You  
> would be amazed how little we find out in closed sessions.” He was  
> referring to closed-door meetings between the committee and  
> administration officials where the legislators are supposedly given  
> briefings on sensitive or classified aspects of government programs.
>
> Following the hearing, this reporter asked Committee Chairman  
> Leahy: “How little do you find out in these closed sessions?”
>
> Leahy replied: “We don’t find out squat. We find out a lot more  
> about some of these secret programs in the open media than we ever  
> do in the classified meetings. After a while I stopped going to  
> them because I read the newspapers and find out a lot more there.”
>
> I then asked Barr: “How far have things gone in terms of a lack of  
> congressional control and oversight over the executive branch?”
>
> Barr replied: “I think it’s hard to tell because we don’t even know  
> what the executive branch is doing. We have some indications  
> because every once in a while something leaks out.... So we do have  
> some indications that it’s progressed extremely far. I’d say that  
> it’s at the point where it’s out of control...”
>
> I then asked: “How close are we to presidential dictatorship? How  
> concerned should citizens be?”
>
> “I think citizens should be extremely concerned,” the former  
> congressman said.
>
> See Also:
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070126/31f13cec/attachment-0001.html