O B A M A W A T C H The Shadow of George W. Bush

Introduction

From 2001 to 2009, the Bush Administration staged a relentless attack on the Constitution and the rule of law in the United States. President Bush illegally diverted funds from fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan to prepare for an attack on Iraq, and lied to Congress regarding the rationale for invading that country. He later attacked freedom of peaceful assembly by ordering the FBI to spy on pacifists who demonstrated against his Iraq war. He illegally spied on Americans without search warrants and denied prisoners the right to fair trials. Bush unconstitutionally repudiated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and the Geneva Conventions. He illegally gave Americans' tax dollars to religious charities and eroded the right to bear arms. Members of his administration illegally revealed the identity of an undercover CIA officer for partisan gain, and when one of them was convicted of obstruction of justice, Bush commuted his sentence.

Bush committed the same crimes that Richard Nixon did -- and many far worse. However, the Republican Party had a Congressional majority from 2001 to 2006, and Bush's party was overwhelmingly loyal to him. When the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2007, the new majority party also refused to investigate Bush's crimes -- an investigation that would have led to Bush's impeachment. In at least one case -- the so-called Protect America Act of 2007 -- Congress retroactively decriminalized Bush's program of spying on Americans at home.

This set a terrifying precedent. As Congress refused to follow the Constitution and impeach a President who used the power of his office to commit crimes, future Presidents may assume they, too, are above the law. The overwhelming majority of documented crimes committed by Bush and his subordinates were never prosecuted. Future Presidents who wish to commit Bush-style crimes can safely assume Congress will do nothing about it.

The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Bush started the government's persecution of peaceful antiwar protests by ordering the FBI's counter-terrorism department to infiltrate antiwar groups. Neither Bush nor the FBI could tell the difference between pacifists and terrorists. In a time of record-shattering deficits, this is an absurd waste of taxpayer dollars.

Even though George W. Bush has left office, the Federal Government is still violating the Constitutional rights of protesters. In September 2010, the FBI raided the homes of antiwar protesters in Minneapolis and Chicago. (Sources: Chicago Breaking News; The Chicago Tribune; The New York Times) The FBI confiscated "evidence" such as artwork, poetry, and pictures of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Is President Barack Obama personally responsible for this? Probably not, but it's happening on his watch.

President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder must immediately case all FBI harassment of peaceful antiwar groups. The FBI's counter-terrorism department must focus on stopping terrorists.

The Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

According to TSA regulations, anyone going through airport security may be chosen to undergo the new procedures. Any individual so targeted must either walk into the machine and wait while it constructs a naked picture of them, or allow the airline personnel to perform a pat-down or strip-search that requires the agent to touch every part of their body. (Sources: Mother Jones Magazine; the American Civil Liberties Union.) It is up to the TSA officers on the scene to determine which passengers must choose between the naked body scan or the strip search, and which may use the normal metal detectors.

Blogger Erin described her full-body pat-down: "I stood there, an American citizen, a mom traveling with a baby with special needs formula, sexually assaulted by a government official... I shook for several hours, and woke up the next day shaking."

In a post titled "My Sex Life with the TSA," Blogger Naomi Wolf reported that she was targeted for a full-body pat-down because she tried to avoid the naked imaging machines. "The procedure is quite highly eroticized," she wrote, and went on to describe how the TSA officials did nothing when a fellow passenger stood there gawking at her during the pat-down.

Someone else targeted for the naked-imaging process was a former "Baywatch" model. (Source: KTLA Television)

Another person targeted was a breast cancer survivor, who was horrified when she saw the naked image of herself with the reconstructive surgery marks clearly visible. Other passengers have reported that TSA officials have made rude comments after seeing their naked bodies. (Sources: The Week; Syracuse Post-Standard; RawStory; the ACLU)

TSA officials put another cancer survivor through an ordeal too disgusting to be recounted here -- see the article at AOL News. Even more shocking: they did it to him again seven months later.

In 2010, the author of this essay experienced the naked body scan. The TSA official who ordered me to go through it would not tell me what it was -- much less that it would construct a photograph of my naked body -- so I assumed it was simply a new kind of metal detector. He also did not inform me that I could have chosen a full-body pat-down instead.

In April 2011, former Miss USA Susie Castillo was subjected to a pat-down. She later wrote: "To say that I felt invaded is an understatement... They're making me choose to either get molested -- because that's what I feel like -- or go through this machine that's completely unhealthy and dangerous... I do feel violated." The MSNBC news story goes into far more graphic detail. (See also: rawstory.com)

Children are not exempt from this treatment, either. One parent reported having to make an agonizing choice between allowing the body scanner to take a naked photo of his three-year-old child or allow her to be strip-searched by a stranger. The parent chose the latter, and endured their child screaming as the TSA officers violated everything he'd taught his child about strangers and inappropriate touching. (Source: The Daily Mail) This behavior isn't unusual. In April 2011, the TSA again made headlines when they performed a full-body pat-down on a six-year-old. (Source: Associated Press.) A month later they strip-searched a baby.

In June 2011, the TSA gave a full-body pat-down to a 95-year-old cancer patient and forced her to remove her adult diaper. Her daughter burst into tears during the incident, and the TSA officials responded by giving her a full-body pat-down as well. The officers then escorted the elderly mother to her gate while her daughter was still undergoing the pat-down. The TSA later told CNN that the officers did exactly the right thing. (Sources: CNN; AOL News.)

Nicholas Monahan reported that TSA officials forced his pregnant wife to undress in full view of everyone in the security area. When he protested, he was arrested. (Source: lewrockwell.com) Adding insult to injury, the arresting officer told him the only reason he would protest this treatment is if he were mentally ill and had forgotten to take his medication.

This treatment from govermment officials is eerily similar to the way the Soviet Union incarcerated political prisoners in mental hospitals. According to the communist propaganda, the Soviet Union was the richest, most free nation in the world -- therefore, anyone who criticized the government must be crazy.

Business consultant Lori Dorn underwent a similar experience. Because she is a breast cancer survivor, she was forced to undergo the naked body scan and the full-body pat down. "I had no choice but to allow an agent to touch my breasts in front of other passengers," Dorn said. (Source: Yahoo News)

Journalist Amy Alkon underwent a full-body search in April 2011. The term "pat down" is insufficent to describe what she went through, and the details are too graphic to recount here.

Another person the TSA targeted for a full-body pat-down was Star Trek actor Wil Wheaton. Definitely a possible terrorist there. "I.. believe that when I choose to fly," he wrote, "I should not be forced to choose between submitting myself to a virtually-nude scan (and exposing myself to uncertain health risks due to radiation exposure), or enduring an aggressive, invasive patdown where a stranger puts his hands in my pants, and makes any contact at all with my genitals. When I left the security screening yesterday, I didn't feel safe. I felt violated, humiliated, assaulted, and angry... I was so furious and upset, my hands shook for quite some time after the ordeal was over. I felt sick to my stomach for hours." He went on: "...Most TSA officers are doing the best they can in a job that requires them to interact with people who automatically dislike them and what they represent. It isn't the individual officer who is the problem; it's the policies he or she is instructed to carry out that need to change."

In July 2011, the TSA targeted a fourteen-year-old girl for the naked body-imaging or full-body pat-down. When her mother protested, the mother was arrested. (Source: AOL News.) Through her lawyer, the mother told reporters that the TSA officials threatened to have her daughter taken from her and placed in foster care. (Source: The Tennessean.) The incident now has its own web page, Support Andrea Abbott.

In January 2012, TSA officials targeted a United States Senator.

Not all cases of the government strip-searching innocent Americans at airports involve the TSA. On September 11, 2011, Shoshana Hebshi -- a young Jewish mother from Ohio -- was unlucky enough to be seated next to two Indian men on a domestic flight. When the plane landed, she and the two men were arrested -- because the two men had been waiting in the line for the bathroom at the same time. She didn't know either of her fellow-passengers, nor did they know each other. Nevertheless, she was escorted off the plane in handcuffs, strip-searched, and thrown in a cell. Four hours later, she was fingerprinted and released -- after the authorities determined it had been a false alarm. Although the FBI later apologized to Ms. Hebshi, the police told the Associated Press that they'd treated "everyone involved with respect and dignity." (Source: Huffington Post)

As Robert Parry reports in Consortium News, in 2001, the Bush Administration received scores of warnings that al-Qaeda was planning a major terrorist attack -- and dismissed these warnings as insignificant. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the government policy changed from being too permissive to being overcautious. However, strip-searching an innocent American woman on a Denver-Detroit flight because two dark-complexioned men were seated in her row is going too far. When American law enforcement officials harass innocent people, it erodes public trust in the people who are supposed to be protecting us. This is exactly what the terrorists want.

Other websites that detail horrifying TSA procedures include RawJustice and TheTruthWins.

In short, federal regulations now require transportation security officials to conduct -- and airline passengers to submit themselves to -- behavior that in any other context would be sexual harassment and pornography. No regulations should treat innocent airline passengers in such a fashion, and no regulations should put TSA officers in a position where they have to do this to people or lose their jobs.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has claimed that the naked images are deleted immediately and cannot be saved. (Source: The Christian Science Monitor.) However, that isn't true. A privacy advocacy group called the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to a Florida courthouse that uses the same body scanners for security. The documents they received proved that the images ARE saved -- contrary to Napolitano's claims.

Another FOIA request by technology website Gizmodo revealed that the government had kept 35,000 naked images. (Source: the Daily Mail.)

Is President Obama personally responsible for this? Possibly not, but Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano -- who was caught lying about what the naked body scan machines can do -- clearly is.

The naked body scanners clearly go too far. Sexual harassment is not an effective technique in fighting terrorism. President Obama and Secretary Napolitano must immediately discontinue the use of these devices and reinstate the use of metal detectors. If they do not act, then Congress must ban their use. The TSA must employ common sense and find better ways to protect airline passengers from terrorists.

(If you're concerned about your rights while traveling by airline, the ACLU has written a guide. Contact them if you think your rights have been violated. However: do NOT complain about TSA procedures when you're at the airport. According to CNN, this will make them more likely to target you.)

Update: In this eye-opening video -- one that should be required viewing for anyone who ever goes to an airport -- the blog TSA Out Of Our Pants proves that the naked body scanners can be easily fooled. In other words, a terrorist could get past the machines carrying a weapon that normal metal detectors would catch.

According to the New York Times, the FBI is seeking more power to intercept communications without search warrants on websites such as Facebook and Skype. This would be done by forcing the websites to install "back doors" allowing the government to monitor private communications.

The problem is, after the Greek government installed similar "back doors" on Greek websites, hackers took advantage of these "back doors" to spy on the government -- including the Prime Minister's cell phone conversations. (Source: Sydney Morning Herald)

Spying on Americans without search warrants is not the answer. Is President Obama personally responsible for this? Possibly not, but Attorney General Holder may be. The FBI must use common sense to protect us from terrorists -- not invade privacy without search warrants or install "back doors" that leave the public vulnerable to criminals.

After the Watergate scandal, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This law set up a special court to issue secret warrants allowing the National Security Agency to bug the telephones of people the court decided were threats to national security. The court routinely issued warrants retroactively, approving a wiretap already in progress. The purpose of this court was to allow the government to track national security threats while preventing future abuses of power. (Richard Nixon bugged the phones of people who criticized him and claimed it was a matter of national security.)

In 2005, the news broke that George W. Bush had issued a secret executive order commanding the NSA to ignore the FISA law and wiretap anyone he didn't like, without a search warrant. These were the same crimes that brought down the Nixon Administration. In 1974, Congress held hearings to determine to what extent the President and his subordinates had broken the law. In 2007, Congress did the opposite -- passing the so-called Protect America Act. This law essentially gutted the FISA act, legalizing wiretaps without warrants. (Source: Wikipedia)

In March 2010, a judge determined that Bush's warrantless wiretaps had indeed been unconstitutional, and the government was liable for damages. (Source: The New York Times) The Obama Administration had spent the last year defending Bush's illegal wiretaps in court, claiming that wiretapping domestic charities without search warrants was necessary for national security.

The Constitution does not work that way. If a government agency wants to wiretap someone, the Constitution requires them to get a search warrant -- either from a normal court or the secret FISA court.

President Obama used to teach Constitutional law. It is the responsibility of the President to uphold the law, not circumvent it -- or cover up crimes committed by his predecessor. When the NSA wants to wiretap someone, all they have to do is get a search warrant first.

In 2010, college student Yasir Afifi -- an American citizen with Egyptian relatives -- discovered a device in his car. He did not know what it was, so he removed it, photographed it, and posted the image on the internet asking if anyone could identify it.

Two days later, he was confronted by FBI agents who demanded he return their property to them. The device was a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracker, and they had installed it in his car without notifying him or obtaining a warrant. (Source: Associated Press.)

Afifi sued, and won the case: a court agreed that placing a GPS on his car without his knowledge constituted a search that required a warrant. The Obama Administration appealed, claiming that the FBI does this "with great frequency."

The FBI is part of the Justice Department. Does Attorney General Holder bear responsibility for this? Almost certainly. Is President Obama responsible for this? Possibly not, but it happened on his watch.

Yasir Afifi is a 20-year-old American college student living in California whose only crime was to have Muslim relatives in Egypt, a country that recently overthrew their dictator. If the government is allowed to plant a GPS tracker in Yasir Afifi's car without a search warrant, they can do the same to anyone. This would lead to abuses of power: the people in the government could order the FBI to harass their political opponents, the way Richard Nixon did. They have to get a search warrant first.

Update: in January 2012, in an unrelated case, the Supreme Court struck down the Justice Department's claim that they don't need a search warrant to put a GPS tracker on someone's car.

The Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

After the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the Justice Department to round up dozens of Arab-Americans and Muslim Americans. He justified this with a misuse of the Material Witness Statute.

The Material Witness Statute is a law meant to aid in the prosecution of organized crime. Say a witness is called to testify at a mafia boss' trial. The boss' associates then threaten to kill the witness should he testify, so the witness decides to flee the country rather than give evidence. The Material Witness Statute is designed to take such witnesses into protective custody so they do not become flight risks.

The Material Witness Statute was never intended to be used as a tool to round up American citizens based on their ethnicity or religion. Yet, while the United States government helped rich Saudi visitors to flee the nation after the 2001 terrorist attacks, it also detained dozens of American citizens who had no connection to terrorism. (Source: Snopes.)

One of these American citizens was Abdullah al-Kidd. According to The Atlantic Magazine, "al-Kidd is an American citizen who converted to Islam. He was arrested under a material-witness statute in March 2003 at Dulles International Airport, detained in high-security cells for a little over two weeks, and subjected to multiple strip searches. After his release from custody on court order, he was placed on strictly supervised probation for some fifteen months. He was never charged with a crime or called to appear as a material witness, but by the time he was freed, his marriage had broken up, and he'd lost his job."

According to National Public Radio, al-Kidd was held in maximum-security prisons and housed with convicted murderers. At times he was held in cells with round-the-clock bright lights, and was the only person in the prison denied clothing.

Eventually, al-Kidd sued John Ashcroft for violating his civil rights, and in 2009 a court held that his case could go forward. The Obama Administration appealed the ruling, arguing that Ashcroft cannot be personally sued for the civil rights violations he ordered when he was attorney general. (Source: Associated Press.) In May 2010, the government won. Al-Kidd's lawsuit against John Ashcroft was dismissed by the Supreme Court. (Source: USA Today.)

Is President Obama responsible for this? Human rights violations that took place under his predecessor are clearly not Obama's fault. However, President Obama is responsible for what his Administration does in the courtroom. Al-Kidd's treatment was unconstitutional, and those who violate the legal rights of American citizens must be held accountable for their actions. Our court system exists so those who have been wronged may seek justice. A government official who crafts policies whose purpose is to deny civil rights must be held accountable.

What if John Ashcroft visited Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi government treated him in the way he ordered the FBI to treat Abdullah al-Kidd? Not only would every American be outraged, but there would be no question that Ashcroft would be justified in seeking recompense from the Saudi government under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

This isn't the end of the story, though. In 2006, an army veteran who was working as a contractor in Iraq was arrested by the US Military, thrown in prison, and beaten -- both by his captors and by other prisoners. He was released nine months later without ever being charged with a crime.

In 2011, the veteran sued Bush's Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld apparently approved which prisoners would be tortured on a case-by-case basis; therefore, Rumsfeld must have known about the veteran's detention and approved his mistreatment personally. Although the Obama Administration has argued in court that Rumsfeld cannot be sued personally for official conduct, a U.S. District Judge has ruled that the lawsuit can go forward. (Source: Huffington Post.)

On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act For 2012 (NDAA). This "law" authorizes the President to use the detention and interrogation powers that President Bush claimed for himself after Congress authorized him to fight the September 11th terrorists -- powers that Congress notably did not give Bush.

According to StopNDAA.org and Salon Magazine, this "law" violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments by authorizing the President to arrest anyone -- including American citizens in the United States -- and imprison them forever, without charging them with a crime, giving them access to an attorney, or putting them on trial.

According to Mother Jones Magazine, the wording of this law is so vague that it could be used to arrest an American citizen on American soil, then send them to another country to be tortured by a foreign government. It's also possible that the government could send American citizens to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and imprison them there without charges.

According to the White House, when signing this law, Obama wrote:

"I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation."

The problem is: Obama won't always be President, and as long as this law is on the books, future Presidents may use it to arrest and detain American citizens without trial. The law may be unconstitutional, but if an American citizen is languishing in Guantanamo Bay prison with no access to an attorney, it's not as if he or she can challenge her detention in court.

So: how would other Presidents use this law?

The current Republican favored to receive his party's nomination is former Governor Mitt Romney. Romney is on record supporting this law; indeed, the NDAA embodies exactly the Presidential powers Mitt Romney wants. Romney is also on record as saying the "water torture" or "drowning torture" technique -- which the Bush Administration renamed "waterboarding" -- isn't really torture. (Source: CNN.) Romney is also on record saying the size of the infamous prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba should be doubled. (Source: ThinkProgress.)

In 2008, Romney gave a speech at the Republican convention. In a rant against liberals, he said:

"Is a Supreme Court liberal or conservative that awards Guantanamo terrorists with constitution rights? It's liberal!"

In Romney's America, anyone the President thinks might be a terrorist can be arrested without proof and imprisoned forever in Guantanamo, without ever being charged with a crime, seeing a lawyer, having a fair trial -- or ever having the opportunity to prove that the government arrested the wrong person. According to Romney, anyone the President accuses doesn't deserve human rights.

But what if the President was wrong?

As I wrote in my essay A Former McCain Supporter Apologizes,

Consider the case of Khalid El-Masri. He's a German citizen who was arrested by the CIA in Macedonia and flown to Afghanistan, where he was thrown in prison. (You think conditions are bad in an American prison? America is the richest nation in the world. Now imagine prison conditions in one of the poorest countries in the world.) After he'd been beaten and brutalized for four months, the CIA realized they'd got the wrong man -- they'd wanted Khalid Al-Masri. Khalid El-Masri was taken from prison, thrown on a plane, and dumped on a road in rural Albania -- with no explanation.

So: what if Alberto Gonzales became President, and he accused Mitt Romney of being a terrorist? If anyone the President accuses of being a terrorist has no constitutional rights, then there would be nothing to stop Gonzales from kidnapping Romney and sending him to Guantanamo Bay -- where he would stay in prison, forever.

Governor Romney, the difference between us and Saddam Hussein is that Americans believe in due process for everyone. In our country, criminals and terrorists get fair trials, where their crimes are proved in public and they are fairly convicted.

President Obama claims he will not use this law to imprison Americans without trial. However, it's entirely possible that Mitt Romney will be elected President in November 2012.

The other major contender for the Republican nomination is former Senator Rick Santorum, a vocal opponent of contraception. In 2011, he said: "I will talk about... the dangers of contraception in this country. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." (Source: ThinkProgress)

In 2006, Santorum said: "I don't think it [contraception] works. I think it's harmful to women. I think it's harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated."

(Senator Santorum doesn't seem to realize that millions of married couples also use contraception.)

Obviously, contraception has nothing to do with the war on terror. However, according to the Guardian newspaper, in 2002 the United States captured an Arab journalist in Afghanistan. He was imprisoned at Guantanamo for the next six years. While there, he was interrogated about one subject: how an Arab news network operates.

Senator Santorum thinks contraception presents "dangers... in this country." If Santorum has the authority to arrest anyone, anywhere, with no charge, counsel, trial, judge, or jury, will he limit himself to people he thinks are terrorists? Or, will he use his authority to arrest anyone else he considers a danger to this country -- such as those who provide or use contraception?

The Eighth Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

In 2005, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced: "It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member [in Iraq], if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to try to stop it." Pace reminded his subordinates to uphold the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the law that governs the conduct of all American military personnel.

According to the Huffington Post, Private Bradley Manning's Army unit was ordered to help the Iraqi military round up Iraqi civilians who were suspected of criticizing the Iraqi government. Manning discovered that, once in Iraqi custody, the people they arrested were routinely tortured and brutalized.

Manning reported this to his superiors, who ignored him. He then (allegedly) sought whistleblower protection and (allegedly) sent the evidence to WikiLeaks. (Source: Huffington Post) This evidence was then printed in the New York Times.

The Army then arrested Manning, denied him whistleblower protection, charged him with aiding the enemy -- a capital offense -- and threw him in solitary confinement. He was placed on suicide watch -- even though he was not suicidal -- and his clothing was confiscated. He has been there since July 2010. (Source: Huffington Post) All this was done because Manning obeyed General Pace's orders and upheld the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Former State Department official Philip J. Crowley believes Manning is guilty of aiding the enemy and should spend the rest of his life in prison. Crowley also believes it's "counterproductive and... stupid" how Manning has been treated. "If you have to explain why a guy is standing naked in the middle of a jail cell," Crowley wrote, "you have a policy in need of urgent review."

Is President Obama responsible for this? He is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Even if he does not bear direct culpability, he is responsible for the actions of the U.S. Military.

Private Manning must be treated humanely. The military authorities must either put him on trial or let him go. Manning must not be penalized for doing exactly what the law required him to do.

In April 2011, President Obama said of Manning: "We don't let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He broke the law." Attorney Glenn Greenwald wrote: "How can Manning possibly expect to receive a fair hearing from military officers when their Commander-in-Chief has already decreed his guilt?" (Source: Salon Magazine) Greenwald also points out that "Manning's punitive detention conditions are themselves illegal."

Activist Kevin Zeese wrote: "President Obama's pronouncement about Manning, "He broke the law," amounts to unlawful command influence -- something prohibited in military trials... Manning will be judged by a jury of military officers in a military court where everyone involved follows the orders of the commander-in-chief... Any officer who finds Manning "not guilty" will have no chance of advancing his career after doing so." (Source: OpEdNews.)

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution: The President "...shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."

Soon after President Bush declared a "War on Terror," he launched a deliberate campaign to make America's clear laws against torture and war crimes seem ambiguous. For instance, when the U.S. Military captured suspected terrorists in Afghanistan, Bush invented a new term for them: "illegal enemy combatants." He claimed that these detainees were neither prisoners of war nor criminals, so no laws applied to them -- and they could be imprisoned forever, with no proof, charge, counsel, trial, judge, or jury. Some of these "enemy combatants" were sent to a prison the Bush Administration built at our naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Others were sent to other countries to be tortured (a process known as "rendition") or sent to secret prisons around the world. Eventually, more suspected terrorists received this treatment, whether they were captured in Afghanistan or not.

In addition, Bush and his subordinates invented a new term -- "waterboarding" -- for the technique formerly known as "water torture" or "drowning torture." They then had the audacity to claim that "waterboarding" was "not torture" because they'd changed its name. Although Bush kept his language ambiguous while he was in office, he later said he was proud of having ordered torture. (Source: Huffington Post) Former Vice President Dick Cheney made similar claims. (Sources: TruthOut; Salon Magazine)

Neither President Obama nor Attorney General Holder appear to have noticed their predecessors publically confessing to some of the most heinous crimes known to man. This is a clear violation of the chief executive's Constitutional responsibility to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." As the chief executive of the United States government, and the chief law enforcement officer of our nation, President Obama and Attorney General Holder have a Constitutional obligation -- and a moral one -- to bring criminals to justice. Obama and Holder are legally and ethically required to investigate and prosecute everyone who crafted and carried out Bush's torture policy. Bush, Cheney, and their subordinates must be arrested, charged, given competent representation, tried fairly, and convicted fairly -- unlike the way they treated the people detained at their orders.

Two days after taking office, President Obama issued an executive order banning torture. Although Obama's heart is in the right place, the President of the United States does not have the authority to ban torture, any more than he has the authority to authorize it.

Why is this? The Eighth Amendment reads "cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted." Torture is unconstitutional. If President Obama has the authority to ban torture, than President Bush must have had the authority to un-ban it. Obama's successor could use an executive order to un-ban it again, then his successor could re-ban it, and so on. If this were the case, torture would be legal in America depending on who's President.

The American system of justice does not work that way. The Constitution requires the President -- every President -- to uphold the law. No President has the power to decide which laws to uphold and which laws to ignore.

Every President before George W. Bush understood this. The first President to issue orders banning torture was George Washington. After World War II, the United States prosecuted and convicted Nazi and Japanese leaders who had ordered what was then known as "drowning torture." The Reagan Administration prosecuted a sheriff and his subordinates who used what was then called "water torture" to force a suspect to confess.

In 2009, Dick Cheney called waterboarding "enhanced interrogation" and claimed that waterboarding suspected terrorists to extract information had saved American lives. (Source: Fox News) Cheney was dead wrong, and suffers from the same delusion that afflicts all torture apologists. Torture is not an interrogation tool. The only reason to torture someone is to force them to confess to things they didn't do. That's what torture is for. Someone broken under torture will say anything they think the torturer wants to hear in order to make the pain stop.

The things prisoners said under torture in order to make the pain stop led directly to some of George W. Bush's false claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was allied with al-Qaeda. (Sources: The New York Times; Frontline.) Instead of saving lives, the waterboarding of suspects led directly to the war in Iraq. That war caused over 4,400 American deaths.

American forces finally brought down terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden two years after President Obama banned the use of waterboarding. They found him using standard interrogation methods. The Bush-Cheney policy of waterboarding prisoners forced the prisoners to lie, and American intelligence spent years chasing false leads. (Sources: Wired Magazine; Ashwin Madia; Dan Froomkin; Robert Creamer; Doug Bandow)

Former President Bush and Former Vice President Cheney have candidly admitted that they abused the powers of their offices and ordered their subordinates to commit crimes. Torture is one of the most depraved things one human being can do to another. If Bush and Cheney are not prosecuted for these crimes, this will serve as a precedent for future Presidents. Obama and Holder have a legal and moral obligation to prosecute, and as yet, they have failed.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Therefore, Congress has the responsibility to oversee the Executive Branch to ensure no high crimes and misdemeanors take place.

Darrell Issa was sworn in as a member of Congress in January, 2001, a few days before George W. Bush was sworn in as President of the United States. Issa spent the next eight years looking the other way as Bush declared detainees to be "illegal enemy combatants" and imprisoned them for years without proof, charge, counsel, trial, judge, or jury. (One of these "enemy combatants" was an American citizen arrested in Chicago.) Issa didn't object at all when Bush violated the War Crimes Act, the FISA act, and the Geneva Conventions.

On October 19, 2010, Congressman Issa said in an interview with Rush Limbaugh: "My committee's number one responsibility is to make sure that the [Obama] Administration obeys its laws. Government oversight is going to be vigorous. I'm gonna increase the number of... subcommittees, and we're going to make sure that this administration starts playing by the rules."

Congressman Issa, of course, didn't do a thing when Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, violated all ten articles of the Bill of Rights and the first three articles of the Constitution. [See: George W. Bush Versus the Bill of Rights.] Issa was silent when Bush wiretapped Americans without search warrants -- the same crimes that brought down the Nixon Administration. It didn't occur to Issa that Bush was breaking the law when he announced he was going to stop following the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Nor did Issa protest when Bush illegally diverted funds from fighting the Taliban in 2002 to prepare for invading Iraq -- two months before Congress authorized the use of force.

Issa turned a blind eye when Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and company led one of the most vile conspiracies in American history: the attempt to provide legal cover for Bush's torture program.

Congressman Issa now proposes to investigate everything the Obama Administration has done, hoping that he'll find something illegal in there somewhere. (If you think this sounds like Kenneth Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton, you're right.) Issa has the audacity to do this after he spent eight years ignoring the serious and blatant crimes of his fellow Republican, George W. Bush. This double standard demonstrates that Congressman Issa is motivated by partisan politics, not by any desire to make sure Obama "plays by the rules."

If President Obama, Secretary Napolitano, Attorney General Holder, or anyone else in the Obama Administration has broken the law, they must be held accountable. They should be impeached or indicted, removed from office, given a fair trial, and convicted.

If Congressman Issa truly wishes to see justice done, he must first investigate the dozens of crimes committed by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their subordinates while they were in office. (He could seek assistance from Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor who convicted Charles Manson.) If Issa wants to make sure the government plays by the rules, he must investigate and prosecute anyone who has illegally harassed antiwar protesters. He must lead Congress in outlawing the naked body scanners and full-body pat-downs used at airports. He must investigate the FBI's illegal use of GPS trackers to follow innocent Americans, prosecute those who planted them without search warrants, and make sure this "frequently" used technique is terminated. (All the FBI has to do is get a court-ordered search warrant like every other law enforcement agency. It's that simple.) Issa can even use this essay as a road map.

Theodore Roosevelt said: "No man is above the law, and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it." In America, the law applies equally to everyone, regardless of political party affiliation or what church they attend. It is illegal to discriminate against Muslims for being Muslims, Democrats for being Democrats, or Republicans for being Republicans. If the FBI targets Muslim college students simply because they are Muslims, the FBI is guilty of discrimination. If Congressman Issa investigates President Obama because he is a Democrat, and ignores George W. Bush's crimes because he is a Republican, Issa is also guilty of discrimination.

In America, the law declares that suspects are innocent until proven guilty, and that everyone is entitled to justice. If government officials are legally allowed to hurt innocent people -- or target them for harassment and discrimination -- we're no better than the Taliban.

In 2010 -- over a year after President Obama took office -- the army arrested 22-year-old Private Bradley Manning and confined him naked in a military prison. Manning is not suicidal, nor has he been accused of a violent crime. Also that year, the FBI hid a GPS tracking device in Yasir Afifi's car without first obtaining a search warrant. Afifi is a 20-year-old American college student, and the FBI had no reason to suspect him of wrongdoing. However, no one in the entire United States government did anything when two millionaires -- George W. Bush and Dick Cheney -- candidly admitted to violating the War Crimes Act when they were government officials. Something is wrong here.

In America, we believe that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that the government exists to protect those rights, and that the Constitution is the legal document that describes how the government is to do this. History has shown that when the personality of a leader overshadows the rule of law, abuses result. This happened in France with Napoleon III, in the Philippines with Ferdinand Marcos, and in the United States with Richard Nixon and George W. Bush.

The only way to prevent this from happening again is to ensure that anyone who uses the power of high office to commit crimes is brought to justice. President Obama has a legal responsibility to ensure that the FBI does not harass antiwar protesters or install GPS devices without search warrants. He has a responsibility to ensure that United States government officials don't assault airline travelers in the name of protecting them. He has the responsibility to bring to justice any government officials who conspired to commit torture or any other crime, even if those officials are no longer in power. If he does not do so, future human rights abuses by the U.S. government won't be just a possibility. They will be a certainty.

This is a personal essay by Christian Colvin.