Bruce Fein, a legal consultant, testifies on behalf of the Executive Accountability Act, which would place criminal penalties on members of the executive branch who lie to Congress in order to encourage it to go to war. He says that Congress should take responsibility for declarations of war. (0:36)
By Learned Foote- Talk Radio News Service
Legal experts on Monday offered their views on H.R. 743, the Executive Accountability Act of 2009 during testimony before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
The bill would place criminal penalties on the executive branch for willingly misleading Congress in order to persuade it to use armed forces.
Said Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-NC) who introduced the legislation, “Members of Congress must be able to trust our President at his word, especially when making decisions to go to war.”
Jones used the behavior of former presidents Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush during the Vietnam and Iraq Wars as examples of “arrogance of power,” which he hoped could be mitigated by this legislation. However, Jones emphasized that “the bill is not about the past,” and emphasized that it would not be applied retroactively.
Dr. Louis Fisher, a specialist in constitutional law, said that the founders who wrote the Constitution knew that “single executives go to war not for the national interest; they go to war for reasons of military glory.” He said that the authority to “take the country from a state of peace to a state of war was to be given to Congress alone.”
Bruce Fein, a legal consultant and constitutional expert who served in the Department of Justice under President Reagan, said that the President could avoid criminal penalties by simply “sharing all of the information he relied upon to Congress.”
Jonathan F. Cohn, a partner at Sidley and Austin who worked in the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush, disagreed with the previous testimonies. He said that presidents should be “truthful and candid always, and especially in the context when the country makes the grave decision to send its children off to war.”
Cohn said the legislation could “impede inter-branch cooperation,” arguing that it could create a chilling effect due to the “fear of potential prosecution.”
“Punishing the ousted regime may be the preferred course of certain banana republics of the past, but with respect, this should not be the United States’ path in the 21st century.”
Bruce Fein, a prominent civil rights lawyer and former attorney under President Ronald Reagan, criticizes President Obama for ignoring torture war crimes rather than prosecuting those involved. He likens President Obama’s administration to the Soviet Union and China (0:25).
Velvet Revolution, a Washington, D.C. based non-profit organization, is calling for the United States government to hold torture lawyers accountable for crimes they have committed.
At a news conference Monday, prominent lawyers Bruce Fein and Kevin Zeese stated their intentions to file complaints against John Rizzo, the acting General Counsel of the CIA, and Jonathan Fredman, a lawyer for the Director of National Intelligence. Rizzo and Fredman have facilitated war crimes yet are still receiving government paychecks, said Zeese.
The United States has been criticized for allegedly torturing individuals at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram Air Force Base.
Zeese also stated that the “United Nations Convention Against Torture”, which was signed by President Ronald Reagan, requires the prevention of torture. Therefore, if President Obama does not prosecute Rizzo and Fredman he would be in violation of the law.
Fein, who served as an attorney under President Reagan, criticized the United States for covering up torture in the name of political expediency, rather than prosecuting those involved with it. “That’s what the Soviet Union would do. That’s what China would do, not the United States of America,” said Fein.
“The toxicity of torture is a poison in our body politic, and there is only one way to remove it. And it’s not to sweep it under the rug. We have to look at the facts, understand what happened, and then hold those accountable through the rule of law,” said Zeese.
By Annie Berman — Talk Radio News Service
The House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing Tuesday to determine whether or not the Uyghurs held at Guantanamo Bay were a part of a terrorist organization known as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM).
Testifying in front of the committee, Bruce Fein, an attorney who specializes in international law argued that the United States needs to take responsibility for the Uyghurs.
Said Fein, “Give the Uyghurs permanent residence in the United States of America like we should have done all along, rather than making other countries take them.”
Susan Baker Manning, a primary defense attorney for a number of the Uygher detainees at Guantanamo, including the four men who were recently released to Bermuda, argued that the detainees have absolutely no relation to any terrorist organization.
“There is no evidence that we are seeing in four long years of vigorous litigation that the original justification for detaining any of the Uyghur men was in affiliation with ETIM or with any other ostensible Uyghur organization,” said Manning.
The question of whether or not ETIM ever existed was discussed as well.
“Chinese authorities continue to arrest Uyghur nationalists inside China over the last 8 years claiming that they are members of ETIM. These arrests have not generally been in response to acts of violence, but related most often to political descent,” said Sean R. Roberts, a Professor of International Affairs at George Washington University, who testified via web broadcast. The bulk of Roberts’ testimony seemed to imply that only the Chinese government believes that ETIM is a terrorist organization.
Said Committee Chairman Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.), “It would appear that we have not heard anything about or from ETIM.”
Manning added, “Most of the Uyghurs had never even heard of the ETIM until they were questioned about it by U.S. interrogators. Nor had they heard of al-Qaida.”
Bruce Fein says Congress has surrendered to the increased power of the president by being unresponsive to decisions made by President Bush. (0:51)
The House Judiciary Committee’s hearing analyzing Congressional response to alleged actions of the Bush administration wrapped up after more than six hours of testimony and questioning. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) said the Bush administration told aides to ignore subpoenas, an action Wexler said is in direct violation of the Congressional oversight based in the Constitution. Bruce Fein, deputy attorney general under Reagan, said the Founding Fathers established oversight so that citizens would be aware of the decisions of their leaders, adding that refusing to appear before Congress is similar to contempt and grounds for impeachment.
Fein continued, saying that Congress has voluntarily relinquished its right to checks and balances to the White House by being unresponsive to the White House’s numerous actions that warrant investigation. He also said that Congress has accepted the notion that a President can declare war without the approval of Congress, an action prohibited by the Constitution. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) suggested that Congress form a bipartisan legal oversight committee that would investigate executive encroachments on the Constitution and the legislature. Schiff said the committee should begin functioning immediately, be bipartisan, and examine historical precedents that led to increased presidential power.
Comparisons were made between allegations against the Bush administration and the impeachment proceedings of President Nixon. Rocky Anderson, founder and president of High Roads for Human Rights, said Americans viewed Nixon’s impeachment as being based in a violation of executive trust, not necessarily violations of law. Former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman (D-N.Y.), who served on the Judiciary Committee during the Nixon era, said bipartisan investigations were successful during Nixon hearings because the Judiciary Committee went to great lengths educating members of Congress and citizens on the Constitution and the compiled evidence.
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) the only Republican who stayed for the entire hearing, made a closing statement in which he emphasized the difference between a “misstatement” and an “intentional misstatement.” He said it is easy to make allegations but that hindsight is not enough to assume decisions made by the White House were intentionally misleading.
Bruce Fein, Deputy Attorney General under President Reagan, says that the executive branch of the U.S. government under the Bush Administration has destroyed the time-honored checks-and-balances and taken the country “perilly close to executive despotism.” He says that the executive branch does not accept that the U.S. was “conceived in liberty” and “dedicated to the proposition that sovereignty in a republican form of government lies with the people.” (2:02)
At the House Judiciary Committee hearing on “Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations,” Bruce Fein, Deputy Attorney General under President Reagan, said that many high crimes and misdemeanors were committed under the Bush Administration. He said that the executive branch “destroyed the Constitution” and the order of checks and balances that it supported. Fein explained that a claim of fighting terrorism can be used to arrest anyone without question and flout any restriction on gathering foreign intelligence. This means that the president can kidnap or detain anyone he thinks necessary, and open mail and burglarize homes if he thinks it necessary — a very “frightening power” according to Fein. Fein also said that “short of impeachment,” there is nothing Congress can do to punish the Bush Administration. (more…)
