SocraticGadfly: Argument 422 for parliamentary government

May 01, 2008

Argument 422 for parliamentary government

You don’t have executive orders in a parliamentary government.
In a partial concession to Congressional pressure, the Bush administration agreed on Wednesday to show the Senate and House Intelligence Committees secret Justice Department legal opinions justifying harsh interrogation techniques that critics call torture.

The decision, announced at a Senate hearing where Democrats sharply criticized the administration’s secrecy on legal questions, did not satisfy other members of Congress who have pushed for the documents for several years, notably Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A spokesman for the Justice Department said officials were discussing whether to share part or all the opinions with Mr. Leahy’s panel.

At the hearing, a department official, John P. Elwood, disclosed a previously unpublicized method to cloak government activities. Mr. Elwood acknowledged that the administration believed that the president could ignore or modify existing executive orders that he or other presidents have issued without disclosing the new interpretation.

Mr. Elwood, citing a 1980s precedent, said there was nothing new or unusual about such a view.

Whether Elwood is right or wrong about presidents having the right to, in essence, classify executive orders is besides the point.

In a parliamentary government, if a prime minister tried to do something called executive orders, not just the opposition but perhaps backbenchers in his or her own party might be calling for a ministerial head on a platter.

No comments: