Questions I Want the Presidential Candidates to Answer

The Iowa caucuses are more than 10 months away, and the presidential race is already giving me heartburn. There are several reasons why. Media coverage is barely better than "Entertainment Tonight," focusing on image, personality, and the horse-race aspect of the campaign. An obscene amount of money has been raised, making this election cycle look like the scene at the end of "Fall of the Roman Empire" when the emperorship was auctioned off. And I'm also not impressed with the current field of candidates, which is dominated by damaged-goods senators and ex-senators. (Why they're damaged goods will be the subject of a future diary.)

What bothers me most of all is that no one is speaking about the most important issue of all: the expansion of Executive Branch power under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. They have created the "imperial presidency" that Richard Nixon dreamed of, but couldn't pull off because of Watergate. An out-of-control executive is a danger the Founding Fathers knew well.

What's most disturbing is the reason for the power grab--namely, national security--those magic words that make checks and balances disappear. This administration took advantage of the September 11 attacks and claimed war powers on the scale of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt, even though far fewer Americans are on the battlefield today than during the Korean conflict or the Vietnam War.

This so-called war has no clearly-defined enemy or objectives, and thus could last indefinitely. It's not unlike the war in 1984, a mysterious conflict waged in far-off lands against a demonized enemy. That unending war was the Party's principal tool for enforcing discipline at home. The United States hasn't become George Orwell's Oceana, but the legal framework is increasingly falling into place.

Why won't the Democrats running for president talk about this issue? Perhaps they've been spun by consultants who've warned them, "you'll be seen as weak on national security." Maybe they believe in a strong presidency and are convinced that they'd make better use of executive power than the man currently in the Oval Office. Or possibly the pollsters have concluded that it makes voters' eyes glaze over.

None of those reasons are acceptable. The next president needs to undertake an A-to-Z review of everything the current administration has done to undermine checks and balances and the separation of powers. And that person should level with the American people about which of the expanded Bush/Cheney powers ought to be rolled back and which, if any, are needed to cope with the likes of al-Queda--and why.

Here's my list of questions about presidential power that I'd like to ask the candidates. It's a long list, but it's going to be a long campaign:

Is the 1973 War Powers Resolution constitutional? Do you intend to comply with it?

Do you believe that the fight against international terrorism is a "war"? If so, what additional steps should be taken to mobilize this country?

What is the scope of the September 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force resolution? Does it, for instance, authorize warrantless surveillance of Americans?

Should pre-emptive military action be limited to an "imminent threat" against the United States? If not, what other circumstances would justify such actions?

When, if ever, should a person be brought before a military commission? Should commissions operate under substantially the same rules as courts-martial?

How would you define "enemy combatant"? What safeguards should be put in place to keep innocent people from being detained?

Will you end the practice of extraordinary rendition of prisoners to countries that engage in torture?

Has the time come to close down the Guantanamo Detention Center?

Are non-citizens taken into custody, such as immigration law violators, entitled to the same procedural protection as citizens?

What circumstances, if any, would justify the suspension of habeas corpus?

Should the United States fully comply with the Convention Against Torture? With the Geneva Conventions?

Will you fully comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978? Do you believe that the president has "inherent authority" to carry out surveillance not authorized by the FISA Act?

Do you favor appointing a "privacy czar" who would oversee the collection of information concerning Americans and report on abuses?

Which provisions of the Patriot Act, if any, should be repealed or amended? What would you like to see added to the Patriot Act?

What is your definition of "domestic terrorism" and "international terrorism"? Of providing "material support" to terrorists?

Do you support the concept of the "unitary executive"? What legal effect, if any, do presidential signing statements have? When, if ever, would national security justify ignoring an act of Congress?

Will you rescind Executive Order 13233, which makes a wide range of presidential records secret?

Finally, do you think there are sufficient checks on abuse of executive power? What additional checks should be created?

Unfortunately, the chances of these questions being asked--let alone answered--in a debate are about the same as my winning the Mega Millions jackpot tomorrow night.