Throwing Away The Key

From the Washington Post: Another example of the Bush White House shredding the Constitution and assaulting civil liberties. Oh, wait...

Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said

After months of internal debate over how to close the military facility in Cuba, White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the prison by the president's January deadline.

Congress Refuses To Investigate ACORN

The U.S. House of Representatives, a/k/a the "people's house," is apparently abdicating its oversight responsibility when it comes to probing widespread allegations of vote fraud:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. has backed off his plan to investigate purported wrongdoing by the liberal activist group ACORN, saying "powers that be" put the kibosh on the idea.

Mr. Conyers, Michigan Democrat, earlier bucked his party leaders by calling for hearings on accusations the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) has committed crimes ranging from voter fraud to a mob-style "protection" racket.

Perhaps he is concerned more about legal issues closer to home. Rep. Conyers wife, Detroit City Councilor Monica Conyers, today pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery.

Supreme Court Puts An End To Meritless Lawsuit Over Non-Scandal

To the dismay of no one but perhaps Vanity Fair readers and MSNBC staff and their rapidly disappearing viewership, the High Court has denied an appeal in the over-hyped CIA leak case:

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to revive a lawsuit that accused former Vice President Dick Cheney and Bush administration officials Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby of exposing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.

The justices, without comment, turned away an appeal by Plame, who worked at the Central Intelligence Agency’s headquarters in Virginia, and her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Plame and Wilson sued the three officials, along with former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, in 2006. The suit accused the men of leaking Plame’s identity to reporters in retaliation for a New York Times opinion piece by Wilson questioning then-President George W. Bush’s basis for invading Iraq.

Keep in mind that despite all the beltway hoopla, no one has ever been charged criminally under the federal statute for "outing" Plame's identity.

Government-Run Healthcare Unconstitutional?

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece suggesting that privacy factors may deem socialized medicine unconstitutional:

Is a government-dominated health-care system unconstitutional? A strong case can be made for that proposition, based on the same "right to privacy" that underlies such landmark Supreme Court decisions as Roe v. Wade.

The details of this year's health-care reform bill are still being hammered out. But the end result is sure to be byzantine in complexity. Washington will have immense say over how, when and through whom Americans are treated. Moreover, despite the administration's public pronouncements about painless cuts in wasteful spending, only the most credulous believe that some form of government-directed health-care rationing can be avoided as a means of controlling costs.

The Supreme Court created the right to privacy in the 1960s and used it to strike down a series of state and federal regulations of personal (mostly sexual) conduct. This line of cases began with Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 (involving marital birth control), and includes the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

Inspector General scandal: Separately, the FBI has opened up an obstruction of justice investigation in the Sacramento scandal that led to the highly suspicious firing of government watchdog Gerald Walpin. Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass observes that that's merely the Chicago way (now renamed the Potomac Way) of doing business:

It's amusing to watch the Washington political establishment feign shock, now that President Barack Obama's reform administration has used a clay foot to vigorously kick one inspector general and boot another out the door.

One inspector general foolishly investigated a friend of the president. Another inspector general audited those juicy bonuses given to AIG executives as part of $700 billion federal bailout of the financial industry...

The use of political muscle may be prohibited in the mythic transcendental fairyland where much of the Obama spin originates, sprouting green and lush, like the never-ending fields of primo Hopium.

But our president is from Chicago. Obama's Media Merlin David Axelrod and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel come right from Chicago Democratic machine boss Mayor Richard Daley. They don't believe in fairies.

The Morphing of the President

Calling it a "stark legal turnaround," the McClatchy news service notices that more and more, Obama resembles his predecessor when it comes to homeland security:

President Barack Obama is morphing into George W. Bush, as administration attorneys repeatedly adopt the executive-authority and national-security rationales that their Republican predecessors preferred.

In courtroom battles and freedom-of-information fights from Washington, D.C., to California, Obama's legal arguments repeatedly mirror Bush's: White House turf is to be protected, secrets must be retained and dire warnings are wielded as weapons.

"It's putting up a veritable wall around the White House, and it's so at odds with Obama's campaign commitment to more open government," said Anne Weismann, chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a legal watchdog group.

On a separate issue, since ABC is giving the White House an unprecedented free infomercial next week, this development should come as no surprise: "An analysis of contributions to the Obama and McCain campaign shows that ABC employees contributed more than $160,000 to the Obama campaign versus less than $5,000 to the McCain campaign."

Is A Detainee Just Another Criminal Defendant?

Why didn't the Bush administration push harder to actually try enemy combatants in military tribunals after announcing they were going in that direction? Part of it resulted from legal roadblocks thrown up by "civil liberties" advocates, but perhaps this was another management failure in the previous administration. But as a practical matter, putting terrorists, detainees, or nongovernmental wealth redistributors (whatever euphemism the government currently uses) in civilian court could have dangerous consequences. When the defense lawyers from the ACLU or some large law firm taking the case pro bono (i.e., for free) start flooding the court docket with discovery motions and other excessive pleadings, sensitive information may surface. There have already been instances where documents obtained at trial have found their way to our adversaries. And then, what happens when defense lawyers, as they often do in criminal cases, muddy the waters enough to obtain an acquittal for a detainee who isn't exactly squeaky clean? Not guilty and innocent are two different things.

...[D]espite repeated questioning, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs refused to answer whether the Obama administration will free Ahmed Ghailani if he's found not guilty in court. The Obama administration flew the accused terrorist from Guantanamo to New York yesterday [June 9] to try him for his alleged role in the 1998 embassy bombings.

“I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about how certain cases may or may not play out,” Gibbs said.

The question is important on several levels. If he will be freed, that prompts questions of national security and whether civilian courts are as appropriate as other venues for such trials. If he won't be freed despite being found not guilty that undermines the credibility of the trial,

Again, what is the end game for those taking on these cases? How does that make the country more safe? Aren't there many other worthy causes these lawyers handle that don't involve individuals who have taken up arms against the U.S. or other countries? As Peter Collier and/or David Horowitz once observed, it appears that the freedom of America is being used to undermine America's freedom.

Federal Investigator Fired for Finding Fraud

If the previous administration sacked a government official under these circumstances, Congress and its media enablers (or vice versa) would be demanding a special prosecutor and a full investigation of cronyism:

An inspector general fired by President Barack Obama said Friday he acted "with the highest integrity" in investigating AmeriCorps and other government-funded national service programs. Gerald Walpin said in an interview with The Associated Press that he reported facts and conclusions "in an honest and full way" while serving as inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

In a letter to Congress on Thursday, Obama said he had lost confidence in Walpin and was removing him from the position.

Walpin defended his work on Friday. "I know that I and my office acted with the highest integrity as an independent inspector general should act," he said.

Obama's move follows an investigation by Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star. Johnson and a nonprofit education academy he founded ultimately agree to repay half of $847,000 in grants it had received from AmeriCorps.

More on "Walpin-gate" here and here. Under the 2008 Inspector Generals Reform Act that then-Senator Obama sponsored, the president is required to give Congress 30-days notice before removing or transferring an inspector general.