America's two party system

[Jefferson23]

April 8, 2011

By Glenn Greenwald (updated below)

Extensive traveling the last couple of days has prevented me from writing, but I wanted to post what I found to be an interesting MSNBC segment I did on Wednesday with Lawrence O'Donnell regarding the way in which America's two-party system suffocates political choice. I spoke yesterday at Harvard's Kennedy School and was asked whether I've ever been told by MSNBC or any other television program on which I've appeared not to speak about a certain issue. I replied that the media's narrowing of political debate doesn't generally operate in such an explicit way (though sometimes it does); rather, by confining themselves only to those issues relating to the partisan conflicts between Democrats and Republicans, anything that exists outside of that sphere is simply ignored. Any positions that enjoy bipartisan consensus -- or issues that the two parties jointly ignore -- are rarely examined in establishment media venues. Because O'Donnell somewhat unexpectedly (and commendably) directed the discussion to the fundamental deficiencies of the two-party system, this segment ended up being an exception to that rule (note that below the video, I discuss the OLC's argument about Obama's war powers):


The Office of Legal Counsel -- the DOJ division which provided the legal authority for virtually everything George Bush wished to do, from illegal eavesdropping to torture -- this week released a memorandum setting forth its reasoning as to why President Obama has the legal authority to involve the U.S. in a war in Libya without Congressional approval. The OLC in essence argued that "the President had constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to direct such limited military operations abroad, even without prior specific congressional approval"; that this authority "derives from the President’s 'unique responsibility,' as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive, for 'foreign and military affairs,' as well as national security"; and that -- despite all appearances -- what is happening in Libya is not a "war" as the Constitution uses that term when assigning the right to Congress (not the president) to declare wars (the OLC emphasized the limited nature of the intervention, though a U.S. General yesterday suggested the U.S. may consider deploying ground troops).

I'll have more to say about this assertion of executive authority, but for now, I'll note 3 points: (1) whatever your view is of this argument, there is no question that it is the exact opposite of what Barack Obama argued as a Senator and candidate; The New York Times yesterday called the OLC memo "a striking departure from Mr. Obama's own interpretation of the president's constitutional powers before being elected"; (2) the small but vocal band of Obama's hardest-core Internet followers spent weeks haranguing anyone who wrote on this issue by absurdly claiming that a 1945 law concerning the U.N. is dispositive in providing statutory authority for Obama's Libya war; so self-evidently frivolous was this claim that the OLC, in arguing for Obama's war powers authority, does not even bother to mention (let alone rely upon) that statute; and (3) Bruce Fein -- the former Reagan DOJ official beloved by progressives during the Bush years for his early and emphatic condemnation of Bush's executive power abuses -- has drafted and published articles of impeachment over Obama's usurpation of Congressional authority in involving the U.S. in this war (Fein suggested the same remedy for Bush's illegal NSA program); obviously, that's not a realistic proposal (in large part because Congress, as usual, has no interest in defending its Constitutional power and prior Presidents have been repeatedly permitted to act in this manner), but the document does set forth the reasons why this action -- though far from unusual -- is such a glaring departure from what the Constitution permits.



UPDATE: I'm speaking this morning, at 11:00 am, regarding WikiLeaks, on a panel at the National Media Reform Conference in Boston, along with Amy Goodman, The Nation's Greg Mitchell and others. For those interested, the panel will be broadcast live at TheNation.com.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/08/two_parties/index.html

[CanonRay]

1. There's a second party?

When did that happen?

[Jefferson23]

2. Well, kinda sorta..public funded elections is my last hope but regardless we do have some difference

Kucinich Responds to Office of Legal Counsel’s Twisted Rationale for Libyan War

Washington, Apr 8 -

WASHINGTON, D.C. (April 8, 2011) -- Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today released the following statement responding the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion regarding the President’s authority to use military force in Libya:

In the legal memo provided by the President’s Office of Legal Counsel, the Administration argues that the President had the authority to attack Libya absent Congressional authorization because he determined it was in the national interest and because the U.S. is engaged in limited military operations that do not constitute a war.


The war in Libya is not in our national interest. The claim that the U.S. had to act in Libya in order to maintain stability in the region – “a vital U.S. interest” – runs contrary to the history of U.S. military intervention in the region. As evidenced by U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and drone bombing campaigns in Pakistan, rather than maintain stability, U.S. military action in the region has unfortunately served to further instability. Occupations fuel insurgencies and close a circle of never-ending violence. Additionally, the doctrine that the U.S. has a responsibility to act militarily, without prior authorization from Congress, in the event of a threat to any of our friends in the world puts us on a path to permanent war and has no legal basis in the Constitution or the War Powers Act.

The Obama Administration has prosecuted a war that is “not a war.” The assertion that U.S. military actions in Libya do not constitute war belies the significant use of military force in Libya. The Administration’s own Secretary of Defense, while testifying before Congress last month, admitted that enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya was an act of war: “A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses.”<1> The United States, thus far, has spent well over $550 million on the war in Libya, using at least 112 long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, estimated to cost up to $1.5 million each, in the first day alone. The U.S. also used Joint Direct Attack Munitions – 2,000 pound bombs – to bomb Libya. The characterization of the use of force in Libya solely as a humanitarian intervention cannot hide the reality of what war is. The attempt to assert that this is not a war does violence to cognition and violence to the English language. It is positively Orwellian.

http://www.kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=234894