American Freedom Agenda
by Ryan Sager
Tue, 12 Jun 2007 at 2:45 PM
updated Tue, 12 Jun 2007 at 2:48 PM
Can a group of dissident conservatives, calling itself the American Freedom Agenda, force the issue of civil liberties into the GOP primary and the general-election race?
Probably not. But here's a write-up of them from the Boston Globe, nonetheless. The group is on the attack against Mitt Romney, because he won't sign the group's freedom pledge. (The only candidate who has is Ron Paul.)
These are no obscure outcasts from the GOP heading up the effort: Richard Viguerie was a pioneer of direct-mail fundraising and crucial to the rise of the modern conservative movement; David Keene is head of the American Conservative Union.
Still, it's not hard to see why the Republican presidential candidates are balking. Just take a look at the AFA's 10-point legislative agenda:
The 10-point AFA statutory agenda would repeal the Military Commissions Act's authorization of military commissions for the trial of alleged war criminals based on coerced or secret evidence. The trials should proceed in civilian courts or by courts-martial which feature time-honored procedural safeguards to insure reliable verdicts.
The Act's suspension of habeas corpus for alleged war criminals or unlawful enemy combatants would also be repealed. The Great Writ of habeas corpus requires the executive branch to justify detentions before an independent and impartial judge. Habeas corpus has been a hallmark of the rule of law since Magna Charta in 1215.
The Act's open-ended definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" would be repealed. It reaches both citizens and non-citizens,and any person affiliated in marginal ways with international terrorist organizations. The substitute definition would confine unlawful enemy combatants to persons engaged in actual hostilities against the United States.
The National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program targeting American citizens on American soil in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 would be denied funding. Appropriations would also be prohibited for any executive spying programs that have not been fully disclosed to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
The state secrets privilege would be revoked. It denies victims of constitutional violations any remedy where proof of the government's wrong doing would disclose national security information, for example, an agreement by the United States to assist kidnappings by a foreign intelligence service.
Presidential signing statements, which declare the President's intent to disregard provisions of bills he has signed into law because he asserts they are unconstitutional, would be subject to challenge by the House and Senate collectively in the Supreme Court. The signing statements are tantamount to line-item vetoes which unconstitutionally encroach on legislative prerogatives.
Legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate would be empowered to decide claims of executive privilege invoked by the President to withhold information from Congress based on national security. Controlled by the legislative branch, the committee rulings would be final and binding.
A Sword of Damocles would be removed from the media by creating a journalist exception for the publication of national defense information leaked by the executive branch, Congress, or otherwise.
Renditions to foreign countries where torture or worse can be reasonably anticipated or secret prisons operated or employed by the United States abroad would be prohibited. Both practices have been prominent features of the "war on global terrorism," but are flagrantly inconsistent with the rule of law. They invite chilling injustices, for example, MaharArar, that fuel the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda and thus make the United States less safe.
Finally, the President's authority to list organizations or persons as implicated in global terrorism based on secret evidence, a marginal connection with terrorists, and no opportunity for genuine judicial review would be repealed. The criminal law, including conspiracy and aiding and abetting provisions, has proven sufficient to deter, to thwart, and to punish terrorism in all is moods and tenses consistent with due process safeguards indispensable to reliable verdicts.
This is basically the opposite, say, of the Rudy Giuliani platform. And I'm not so sure Hillary Clinton could sign anything like this, either.
Frankly, it's not the job of the president to limit executive power like this (though it is the job of the president to uphold the Constitution). It's the job of Congress to rein in the president. The Republican Congress failed to do that for years. Now, the Democrats are failing to do it.
I'd personally be much more interested in seeing congressional candidates sign unto an agenda like this.
Related Topics: GOP Primary
Latest Politics Homepage
|
Print
Send
RSS
