• 2005-12-24

    布什的新麻烦

    版权声明:转载时请以超链接形式标明文章原始出处和作者信息及本声明
    http://www.blogbus.com/danecao-logs/1742211.html

    布什对intel-gate 的解释实在令人觉得遭到了愚弄;仿佛民众与公舆被当众强奸,父母找来兴师问罪,布什政府搪塞以"他们愿意的呀,他们事先答应了的呀..."等等苍白无力的理由,接着堂皇离开.但是 hang on a minute,what did you say? 他们愿意的?若是我们找到一个证人,把铁般的证据摆上台面,说明是布什政府逾距施暴,那么后果又怎样呢?Who'll be held culpable for  this mess?And if ever pinned down,will he ever be brought to justice and pay some price?Will the taxpayers of America pick up the pieces for those havoc wreakers just again?

    Anyway,down to business.美参议院原民主党多数派领袖 Mr Tom Daschle 曾参加过投票通过在9/11 后授权布什政府"对外国"以及"美国国内"采取一切"必要适当"的措施防止,挫败与打击世界恐怖势力的权利法案;他可谓对当事人是否是"他们愿意的呀"的细节了如指掌.今天他跳出来(希望更多的是出于良心与职责,对真正的民主精神的维护,而非褊狭的partisan Bias)澄清事实,增补事实,拨明事实,给民众一个真实的当局,一个真实的政党.现全文收录,便于各位看官了解美国政治制度和checking & balancing 功能,有心者参照自身,以求自新;无新者就权当做"隔岸观火",幸灾乐祸的材料吧.

    Power We Didn't Grant

    By Tom Daschle
    Friday, December 23, 2005; A21

    In the face of mounting questions about news stories saying that President Bush approved a program to wiretap American citizens without getting warrants, the White House argues that Congress granted it authority for such surveillance in the 2001 legislation authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda. On Tuesday, Vice President Cheney said the president "was granted authority by the Congress to use all means necessary to take on the terrorists, and that's what we've done."

    As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel's office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance.

    On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on Sept. 14, to authorize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

    Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.

    The shock and rage we all felt in the hours after the attack were still fresh. America was reeling from the first attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor. We suspected thousands had been killed, and many who worked in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were not yet accounted for. Even so, a strong bipartisan majority could not agree to the administration's request for an unprecedented grant of

    authority.

    The Bush administration now argues those powers were inherently contained in the resolution adopted by Congress -- but at the time, the administration clearly felt they weren't or it wouldn't have tried to insert the additional language.

    All Americans agree that keeping our nation safe from terrorists demands aggressive and innovative tactics. This unity was reflected in the near-unanimous support for the original resolution and the Patriot Act in those harrowing days after Sept. 11. But there are right and wrong ways to defeat terrorists, and that is a distinction this administration has never seemed to accept. Instead of employing tactics that preserve Americans' freedoms and inspire the faith and confidence of the American people, the White House seems to have chosen methods that can only breed fear and suspicion.

    If the stories in the media over the past week are accurate, the president has exercised authority that I do not believe is granted to him in the Constitution, and that I know is not granted to him in the law that I helped negotiate with his counsel and that Congress approved in the days after Sept. 11. For that reason, the president should explain the specific legal justification for his authorization of these actions, Congress should fully investigate these actions and the president's justification for them, and the administration should cooperate fully with that investigation.

    In the meantime, if the president believes the current legal architecture of our country is insufficient for the fight against terrorism, he should propose changes to our laws in the light of day.

    That is how a great democracy operates. And that is how this great democracy will defeat terrorism.

    分享到:

    历史上的今天:

    Sister pregnant! 2006-12-24
    我评论电影 2005-12-24