Rove & Gingrich's Ethical Legacy

The article below is pulled out of my draft archives. I put it together before Alberto Gonzales was confirmed as Attorney General, but I decided to print it today for a couple of reasons. First, I think it helps shed some light on what I’ve been discussing for the past two days – i.e. the Karl Rove/Newt Gingrich style politics that have become the norm for both parties and, second, the ethical erosion this attitude has caused.

I know I’m asking my readers to suspend their sense of time on this one, but I think the points made here still apply far too well to what we are seeing in Washington today. The final segment, BTW, also speaks to a controversy going on in the Missouri legislature right now which has to do with the sunshine laws.
***********************************************************************
What is our national ethic?

For many years I have watched what I think is the erosion of our national ethic. A few stories in today’s news provide contrasts that keep the question of ethics in the air.

SENATE DEBATES GONZALES NOMINATION: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/politics/01cnd-gonzales.html?ex=1181793600&en=477bb2206dabda85&ei=5070 The Senate has been hotly debating whether or not Mr. Bush’s nominee to head the Department of Justice, Alberto Gonzales, is qualified for the job. Republicans like Orin Hatch and Arlen Specter argue that his personal record of achievement as the first Hispanic-American to rise to such heights should give him a free pass to the position. Democrats argue that no one of any reputation or race should be given the position if he has supported torture, reduction of citizen and resident rights, and the politicization of the Department of Justice.

For me, just the fact that he rose to the Supreme Court judgeship in Texas under W is a strong indicator. W only likes those who are unquestioningly loyal and anybody unquestioningly loyal to W is a fool in my view.

But the issue here comes down to party politics. Republicans contend the whole debate is Democratic party politics, but the questions the Dems have raised seem to me to have validity. The Republican position squelches debate on or investigation into these legitimate questions by polarizing the debate.

Once again party politics a la Newt Gingrich trumps concerns about the future of our country.

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS RULES DETAINEE MUST BE TRIED OR RELEASED: Zinie Chen Sampson for AP reports:
RICHMOND, Va. - The Bush administration cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it believes is an al-Qaida sleeper agent without charging him, a divided federal appeals court ruled Monday. The court said sanctioning the indefinite detention of civilians would have “disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the country.”

In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn’t strip Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident and the only person being held as an enemy combatant on U.S. soil, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court.

It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.
“To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the country,” the court panel said.

Al-Marri’s lawyers argued that the Military Commissions Act, passed last fall to establish military trials after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, doesn’t repeal the writ of habeas corpus — defendants’ traditional right to challenge their detention.

As Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales has already said that he will fight this decision. So I ask you, is the U. S. Court of Appeals just marching to the beat of Democratic Party politics or is there, perhaps, some validity to their arguments?

Finally, here is an article I have had on hold as a draft since April. I think it speaks volumes about the current Washington, D.C. ethic.

ETHICS -- SECRET HOLD BLOCKS OPEN-GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION FROM REACHING SENATE FLOOR: On April 12, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously passed the OPEN Government Act, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). The bill, which has garnered support from more than 100 organizations, would improve the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by reducing "delays in releasing government records requested under FOIA by creating incentives for public officials to comply with the law." The House passed a similar measure earlier this year but the bill was blocked from reaching the Senate floor for a vote yesterday. A "Republican senator called the Minority Leader's office and objected to a vote on the bill, but asked for anonymity and did not publicly state the reason for the hold." "It is both unfortunate and ironic that this bipartisan bill, which promotes sunshine and openness in our government, is being hindered by a secret and anonymous hold," said Leahy in a statement. This is not the first time a secret hold has been used to block open government legislation from reaching the floor. In Aug. 2006, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) put a hold on a bill to create a searchable public database of all federal grants and contracts. Steven's role was revealed only after online public advocates and journalists forced senators to go on the record about whether they placed the hold or not.

It seems to me that the party politics that daily blocks the efforts of either party to accomplish anything positive for the country also blocks the potential for any good to come from the present Congress. If history doesn’t look back on this period of American politics and find it abhorrent, I will have missed something along the way. The combination of a bullheaded, arrogant and hegemonic administration with a Congress whose only concern is party politics has made for many years of the most wasteful and damaging world leadership seen since Rome fell.

It is obvious that Congress no longer has a strong enough sense of ethics to act responsibly. Do the people of this country understand ethical behavior well enough to throw out the rat pack that runs things from D.C.? It seems doubtful to me, but I sure would like to be proven wrong about that.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi

Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR