The high quality players can be of different kinds. For witnesses, we ought to have excellent expert witnesses who can discuss the meanings of what's already known, or reasonably to be inferred, from the public record.
One significant advantage of having Congress do its job, and fulfill its oath, would be that Congress has the power to subpoena witnesses and documents. By this means, the body of information could be greatly expanded. (For example, we still do not know if the warrantless eavesdropping was confined to a search for terrorists, or whether domestic political opponents were also targeted.)
But we already know a great deal-- quite possibly more than enough. (For example, a study group of the American Bar Association knew enough from the public record to declare that the Bush Administration has violated the law in those warrantless searches, regardless of their targets.) We may well have no need for the kinds of discovery process that proved, through the Watergate hearings, to be Nixon's undoing. What may be more important is to establish the significance of the information already disclosed.
To this end, the "high quality players" could well include constitutional scholars, historians of American government, and other people qualified to pass expert and well-founded judgments on whether various forms of conduct constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" of the kind envisioned as grounds for impeachment, and on how serious any misconduct has been in the context of American historical experience of various presidencies.
Perhaps also the "high quality players" could include the kind of former office holders who command the respect of Americans generally: perhaps people with a reputation for integrity, such as Warren Rudman, Jimmy Carter, and George Mitchell; perhaps people who performed a similar function for America at the time of Watergate, and who still are around, such as Howard Baker and Elizabeth Holtzmann.
An "honest deck" would mean a process that is seen as fair to both sides, i.e. that presents as strong as possible case against this administration and as strong as possible a defense of the administration.
Years ago, PBS had a series called "The Advocates," each episode of which staged a formal debate, with attorneys and witnesses for both sides, concerning some issue of public importance. Perhaps something of that sort could be conducted as an ongoing series of hearings conducted like legal proceedings, with direct examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
An honest deck would require finding as capable an advocate for the administration as can be found for the job.
Visibility
Of course, if Congress were to hold the investigative hearings that we need, the whole nation would be rivited to the television as it was at the time of the Watergate hearings. Visibility would be automatic, not a challenge to be met.
The next best thing would be if some major media organization would sponsor and broadcast such a series of hearings. Given the performance of the corporate media in covering the Bush administration, and with even the opposition party showing so little courage, can it be realistic to expect any of the major networks to be so bold as to treat the need for such investigative hearings so seriously?
Even though most of the corporate media cover the specific new revelations of administration scandals, they still do little to present the big picture, and still treat the Emperor as if he's wearing clothes. Have things changed enough that any network could be persuaded to hold such hearings? If the millions of people who are ready to move in this direction were to launch a highly visible petition drive, would that create sufficient impetus to induce some network to do so? Would such a petition drive be any more likely to succeed with the media than with Congress? Would PBS, having survived its recent Bushite assault, have the temerity to play such a role?
It is hard to be terribly optimistic.
Perhaps more realistic is the hope that some major players could come together to create such an event and get the major media to cover it as news.
For example, Ted Turner --though he no longer controls CNN-- is still a man of some resources and, still more important, someone who has shown some boldness of vision in the past. His foray into the Soviet Union in the early 1980s was courageous, and helped establish the Track II diplomacy that arugably contributed to the successful conclusion of the cold war. Perhaps a man like Turner would welcome a chance to come off the sidelines where his only laurels are those he rests on and again play an important --perhaps heroic-- role in American history.
A credible and thorough investigation of this regime, and its possible impeachable offenses, would take considerable resources. Besides Ted Turner, one might look to someone like George Soros for such financial backing. Soros is known to have a passion for the creation and defense of genuninely democratic institutions, and he's shown a willingness to back that passion with his wealth. Much of his pro-democracy work has been directed at the newly emerging democracies of his native Eastern Europe, but with the vital institutions of democracy under threat here where modern democracy had its beginning, Mr. Soros might well find the backing of such investigations/hearings the most strategically significant place for him to contribute to the survival and spread of democracy.
One significant advantage of having Congress do its job, and fulfill its oath, would be that Congress has the power to subpoena witnesses and documents. By this means, the body of information could be greatly expanded. (For example, we still do not know if the warrantless eavesdropping was confined to a search for terrorists, or whether domestic political opponents were also targeted.)
But we already know a great deal-- quite possibly more than enough. (For example, a study group of the American Bar Association knew enough from the public record to declare that the Bush Administration has violated the law in those warrantless searches, regardless of their targets.) We may well have no need for the kinds of discovery process that proved, through the Watergate hearings, to be Nixon's undoing. What may be more important is to establish the significance of the information already disclosed.
To this end, the "high quality players" could well include constitutional scholars, historians of American government, and other people qualified to pass expert and well-founded judgments on whether various forms of conduct constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" of the kind envisioned as grounds for impeachment, and on how serious any misconduct has been in the context of American historical experience of various presidencies.
An "honest deck" would mean a process that is seen as fair to both sides, i.e. that presents as strong as possible case against this administration and as strong as possible a defense of the administration.
Years ago, PBS had a series called "The Advocates," each episode of which staged a formal debate, with attorneys and witnesses for both sides, concerning some issue of public importance. Perhaps something of that sort could be conducted as an ongoing series of hearings conducted like legal proceedings, with direct examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
An honest deck would require finding as capable an advocate for the administration as can be found for the job.
Visibility
Of course, if Congress were to hold the investigative hearings that we need, the whole nation would be rivited to the television as it was at the time of the Watergate hearings. Visibility would be automatic, not a challenge to be met.
The next best thing would be if some major media organization would sponsor and broadcast such a series of hearings. Given the performance of the corporate media in covering the Bush administration, and with even the opposition party showing so little courage, can it be realistic to expect any of the major networks to be so bold as to treat the need for such investigative hearings so seriously?
Even though most of the corporate media cover the specific new revelations of administration scandals, they still do little to present the big picture, and still treat the Emperor as if he's wearing clothes. Have things changed enough that any network could be persuaded to hold such hearings? If the millions of people who are ready to move in this direction were to launch a highly visible petition drive, would that create sufficient impetus to induce some network to do so? Would such a petition drive be any more likely to succeed with the media than with Congress? Would PBS, having survived its recent Bushite assault, have the temerity to play such a role?
It is hard to be terribly optimistic.
Perhaps more realistic is the hope that some major players could come together to create such an event and get the major media to cover it as news.
For example, Ted Turner --though he no longer controls CNN-- is still a man of some resources and, still more important, someone who has shown some boldness of vision in the past. His foray into the Soviet Union in the early 1980s was courageous, and helped establish the Track II diplomacy that arugably contributed to the successful conclusion of the cold war. Perhaps a man like Turner would welcome a chance to come off the sidelines where his only laurels are those he rests on and again play an important --perhaps heroic-- role in American history.
A credible and thorough investigation of this regime, and its possible impeachable offenses, would take considerable resources. Besides Ted Turner, one might look to someone like George Soros for such financial backing. Soros is known to have a passion for the creation and defense of genuninely democratic institutions, and he's shown a willingness to back that passion with his wealth. Much of his pro-democracy work has been directed at the newly emerging democracies of his native Eastern Europe, but with the vital institutions of democracy under threat here where modern democracy had its beginning, Mr. Soros might well find the backing of such investigations/hearings the most strategically significant place for him to contribute to the survival and spread of democracy.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
