A few quick ones for Wednesday

Couple short ones today…

I’ve always been kind of torn on Joe Biden. I’ve always liked his qualifications on foreign policy, and he’s clearly bright. On the other hand, there’s a rather distinct mouth-brain filter issue that makes me reluctant to make him the nation’s ambassador to the world. Still, when he wants to, the man can turn a phrase. From Tuesday night’s Democratic debate:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPOAKXBi9Pw[/youtube]

Meanwhile, over on the Hill, the Judiciary Committee is looking less and less likely to endorse the nomination of Michael Mukasey to be the next Attorney General. This is really remarkable, given that Mukasey seemed destined for a swift confirmation, what with his stellar qualifications of not being Alberto Gonzalez. However, as people began reading more of his judicial opinions, it became clear that whatever competence he might bring to the office, it also comes with a hefty dose of executive-authority worship. Beyond that, there’s the entire argument over torture. For those who haven’t been watching the fight, a brief overview:

In a round of hearings, the Judiciary Committee asked Mukasey about a method of interrogation known as “waterboarding,” in which a prisoner is strapped tightly to a board, a cloth placed over his face, and water poured over his head, so that in attempting to inhale, the prisoner inhales only wet cloth, making him feel as though he’s drowning. (In one iteration, anyway. As with most forms of torture, there are all manner of delightful varieties.) He dodged the question, claiming that he didn’t know what waterboarding was; that he wouldn’t even speculate on what it might be, since that would give al-Qaeda an idea of what they might face in US custody; and that he wouldn’t say whether he thought such a thing was illegal, as that might put US officials in danger of arrest.
The proper response to claims 1 and 2 is to simply call bullshit, anyone who’s read a newspaper in the last five years knows what waterboarding is, and that it’s been used on terrorism suspects in American custody. As for the third, if American officials have done something illegal, then they damn well ought to face trial for it. And if they did it because their bosses at Justice, the VP’s office, or the White House told them it was OK, then those bosses damn well deserve to be prosecuted. Do we really have to sit down a federal judge and explain to him the basic principle of American government that nobody is above the law? More on this one as the votes come in.

Finally, for those of you who like to finish your reading with a bit of schadenfreude, here’s a fun story out of Washington state. I must say, as many times in the last few years as I’ve heard the “closeted antigay Republican exposed in run-in with the law” story, somehow it just never gets old. Although this one can’t hold a candle to the best one of the year: the lamentable tale of Bob Allen, arrested for offering an undercover police officer $20 for the opportunity to perform oral sex on him. When asked about the occurrence, Allen claimed that, said officer being black, he was afraid for his life and willing to do anything to survive. That one may never be topped.

Back from a baseball break

Sorry for the recent lack of posts, had to take the weekend off to watch the Red Sox finish their World Series sweep. (My condolences to the Rockies and their fans. They had one hell of a run, they’ll definitely get another shot in the next few years.)

With the baseball season in the books, time to get back to politics. I promised y’all more stuff on Iran, and I do like to keep to that sort of promise. So let’s head in and get to the bottom of what may well be our third war in six years. We’ll start with a bit of historical background.

mossadegh

Any understanding of US-Iran relations needs to start with this guy. Mohammed Mossadegh, prime minister of Iran in the early 50′s, led his country on a number of reforms, most notably and controversially the nationalization of the oil industry, until then controlled by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The Brits, amazingly enough, were annoyed by the loss of their oil, and asked the United States to take action. The CIA, in their inimitable way, put money into the right hands, and a military coup d’etat swept Mossadegh out of power in favor of the Shah.
This move proved fairly unpopular among the Iranian people, and thus the Shah maintained his power through the grand traditions of torture, repression, and secret police. He was supported in these endeavors, both financially and militarily, by the United States, who saw him as a valuable ally against Soviet expansion. Decades of oppression finally bubbled over in the Islamic Revolution of 1978-9, the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini’s theocratic government, and the seizing of the American Embassy in Tehran. Relations between the two countries entered a rather tense phase, with Iran supporting various anti-American terrorist causes (most notably Hezbollah) and the US supporting pretty much anyone who opposed the Ayatollah. For example, this guy, who you may recognize from his many appearances on South Park:

Saddam Hussein

Tensions eased a bit in the mid-90′s, largely due to a more moderate tone from the Iranian government toward the West and a generally receptive administration in the United States. After 9/11, Iran offered some cooperation (how much is still a matter of argument, there’s an excellent set of opinions here) against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Then, of course, we had the 2002 State of the Union and the “Axis of Evil” designation, followed by the invasion of Iraq. The hardliners within the Iranian government saw both (not unreasonably) as hostile moves, and used the opportunity to reassert control, purging the moderates and taking every opportunity to condemn American aggression.

And so here we sit, with Iran’s president giving bellicose speeches across the globe and our Congress declaring part of Iran’s military a terrorist organization. We’ve got prominent foreign policy analysts claiming that Iranians “have terrorism in their DNA.” It’s beginning to look very much as though the question of the United States attacking Iran is one of “when,” not “if.”

President Bush has apparently said on several occasions that he doesn’t want to leave Iran’s nuclear program as an unresolved issue after he leaves office. Yes, that’s right. A $9 trillion national debt, a still-flooded New Orleans, a collapsing healthcare system, and 130,000 troops in Iraq can be left to the next guy, but Iran we’ve gotta bomb tomorrow. And if you think Congress will stop him, you haven’t been paying much attention. For one thing, the new Democratic majority has been, shall we say, less than assertive in standing up to the President on matters of war.

For another, this is an Administration that has repeatedly made it clear that it feels Congress has absolutely no authority over the Presidency where war is concerned. Dick Cheney has said publicly that the first President Bush would have had the authority to invade Iraq in 1991 even if Congress had voted against it. Even better, remember that little resolution I mentioned earlier, which laid the groundwork for the President to declare part of Iran’s military a “supporter of terrorism”? Consider it in the context of the Sept. 14th, 2001 “Authorization for Use of Military Force,” effectively declaring the “War on Terror” underway. If part of Iran’s military is a terrorist group, then (according to these blokes) the President has the right to attack it without Congressional permission. And if the rest of Iran’s military counterattacks, then they’re supporting terrorists, and we get to go after them, too.

I wish I could say that this is a fluke, that if Congress can just find its spine for the next year or so and run out the clock on the Bushies, we’ll avoid a war. I’m more than a bit worried, though. Take a look at this debate, from Talking Points Memo:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-0E6ka8k54[/youtube]

The dude who doesn’t seem to understand the difference between Nazi Germany and, as Paul Krugman put it, “a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut” is Norman Podhoretz, who in addition to being the dean of Washington’s neoconservative dingbats, is the chief foreign policy advisor to Rudy Giuliani, the GOP frontrunner for 2008. With that reassuring thought, I’m off to bed. With any luck I’ll have something cheerier for you tomorrow.

Fox News: Redefining absurdity, every day

I’ve just spent the last ten minutes in convulsive laughter. It is quite seriously the hardest I’ve laughed in weeks. Tuesday morning, on Fox News, they blamed the California wildfires on al-Qaeda. I swear on Buddha’s boxer shorts this happened. Here, take a look for yourself (but first, move anything you could spill, knock over, or spit-take away from your computer):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Px_mEucuaw[/youtube]

“Move along, folks, no global warming to see here…”

By request, we head over to Capitol Hill…

senate seal

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held hearings on Tuesday to discuss the effects of climate change on public health. Among those called to testify was the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the government’s main agency for monitoring illness and public health threats. You can read the text of her testimony here.

Now, you may have noticed that this testimony is less than comprehensive. It talks at length about the CDC’s ability to prepare for threats, and its capacity to monitor potential problems, which is interesting, but since that’s sort of fundamental to the purpose of the CDC, not terribly enlightening. Given that the hearing was entitled “Examining the Human Health Impacts of Global Warming,” one might think that America’s top agency for monitoring human health might talk about those impacts. But they didn’t. Did they forget? Have they actually just not bothered to look into it?

Oh, no, wait, what’s this on CNN.com? “Sources: White House Cut Testimony.” Ah, I see. Testimony discussing the potential health problems caused by global warming would have to acknowledge that global warming exists. Thus, the White House needed to edit the hell out of it to make sure none of those pesky scientific warnings get in there. This isn’t the first time the Administration has pulled this little trick, they’ve apparently been censoring NASA reviews of climate change for years now.

Now, part of this is just the standard Bush Administration secrecy fetish. But it’s also about the fight to discredit science in general. Science, you see, has this pesky habit of pointing out awkward things like cigarettes causing cancer, pesticides harming wildlife and humans, and fossil fuels warming the earth. Also, things like this little guy:

blinky.gif

And when the public becomes aware of these things, they tend to demand government action, which tends to be expensive for big business. So, what’s an enterprising corporation that wants to keep burning coal or dumping toxic waste to do?

They take advantage of the basic nature of scientific inquiry: namely, that nothing in science is ever proven, only not disproven. Doubt is central to the discipline; without it, there’d be no discovery. Thus, for just about any well-established theory, there’s some scientist who doesn’t fully agree with the consensus. So, all a company has to do is find that person and give him or her a big ol’ megaphone. Poof, you’ve got an instant scientific controversy where none existed before. And when you’ve got a business-friendly administration willing to suppress scientific facts which run counter to their ideology, it becomes all the easier.

PBS does Iran

usiran.png

I’m in the midst of watching Frontline, which tonight focuses on the growing tensions between the United States and Iran. I’m continually amazed by the level of access and analysis they bring to their topics, and tonight’s is no exception. They’ve managed to get interviews with top American officials, as well as prominent members of the Iranian parliament. The whole piece is now online at their website, I highly recommend that you watch it.

One thing that struck me as especially staggering was a document known as the “grand bargain.” Soon after the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. received a document, apparently from moderates within the Iranian government, proposing negotiations over a set of basic issues. They asked that the U.S. stop trying to overthrow their regime, take Iran off the “Axis of Evil,” and agree to a set of security arrangements. In return, the Iranians would aid the U.S. in stabilizing Iraq, abandon all attempts to build nuclear weapons, and cease aid to terrorist groups in Lebanon and Palestine. The Bush Administration dismissed it without even bothering to reply.
Now, clearly there was serious disagreement as to how serious the offer was, the actual ability of the writers to follow through on it, and so forth, but how do you not pursue that? Worst case, it’s bullshit, in which case we’ve lost nothing. Best case, we put an end to 27 years of hostility and gain an incredibly valuable strategic partner in the Middle East. This is Diplomacy 101. Hell, it’s Art of War 101, winning your objectives without spilling blood.

I’m definitely going to have more to say on this later, but the combination of 3 am and detailed discussion of U.S.-Iranian relations rarely ends well. Come back tomorrow for politricks’ take on the events that got us where we are now.

A sojourn into the land of smears

It strikes me that I’ve been pretty heavily verbal lately, so I’ve decided to go for the visuals today. In this post, we’ll explore the wonderful world of campaign advertising. Now, I’ve written quite extensively here about the use of fear in politics, mostly in the realm of foreign policy. For example, this little gem, released in the final weeks before the 2004 election:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU4t9O_yFsY[/youtube]

However, I’d like to spend today’s post discussing another sort of ad that’s been a winner for the GOP over the years: the sort that plays on racial fears. Here are two ads, from two different races in the 2006 cycle, both run by the supporters of white Republicans running against black opponents.

The first, run by supporters of Bob Corker against Harold Ford Jr. in the Tennessee Senate race:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vZF5ZTu2Go[/youtube]

And the second, run by the Kerry Healey campaign against Deval Patrick in the Massachusetts gubernatorial race:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2b64RSE26w[/youtube]

Now, aside from the traditional, almost cartoonish “the Dems’ll raise your taxes and take your guns” stuff in the Corker ad, the message running through these ads is pretty straightforward if you’re paying attention. Namely, “hey, white folks, you’d better vote for me, because otherwise that black fella and his friends are going to come after our women.” It’s not exactly a new tactic, this sort of imagery has been around for centuries, in contexts as varied as George Wallace’s warnings about “race-mixing” and King Kong (I’m serious, there’s a brief mention of it here). What’s surprising and saddening is how well it still works.

Bob Corker wound up winning his Senate race against Harold Ford by a slim margin, and it’s not absurd to think that this ad may have made the difference. Kerry Healey lost her race, but the “Deval supports rapists” tactic did gain her a bit of traction, and was just about the only time the Patrick campaign lost control of the public debate. And that was in Massachusetts, bluest of blue states.

The reason I bring this up is twofold. First, to get y’all ready for more of the same. There’s a pretty decent chance that the next Democratic nominee for President will be Barack Obama, and if that’s the case, I daresay we’ll be seeing more than a few appeals to our racist demons. Secondly, understanding these tactics can help us to put an end to them.

People use advertising that appeals to the worst in us because it works. The first President Bush got a huge boost from the Willie Horton ad. The 2000 whisper campaign about John McCain’s daughter in South Carolina arguably cost him the primary, and ultimately the Republican nomination. Why abandon a tactic that’s been proven to so consistently get results?

The only way that this sort of advertising will stop is if it stops working, and it’ll only stop working if we learn how to resist it. So when that latest campaign ad comes on the TV, stop and pay close attention. Political parties pay advertisers lots of money to find the weak points in voters’ psyches and exploit them. It’s not enough to listen to what they’re saying. You have to figure out what they’re trying to get you to think. Are they really addressing an issue, or just trying to make you afraid or angry? And if it’s the latter, why? We need to ask these questions. If we don’t, we’re just going to get more wolves, bunnies, and darkened garages, and democracy will be the worse for it.

It would be funny if it weren’t so maddening…

Hey all, and a happy Islamofascism Awareness Week to you! Yes, that’s right, an entire week devoted to America’s most overblown foreign policy concept. Just think what might happen if we forgot that we’re all only a heartbeat away from falling under the iron boot of the sinister Muslim hordes. We might… (I shudder even as I type it) start thinking rationally about fighting terrorism! The horror.

As much fun as it is to take cheap shots at this (and oh, is it fun), it’s important to try to understand it, if for no other reason than it goes to the heart of the whole “war on terror” concept. Put simply, if the 9/11 attacks were the act of a terrorist organization with minimal aims other than mass destruction, then the proper response would have been limited operations within Afghanistan to destroy their headquarters, along with worldwide police work to prevent future attacks and roll up terrorist cells.

On the other hand, if they were the opening salvo in a global jihad bent on destroying Western civilization and replacing it with a militant Muslim superstate? Well, then we’d be totally justified in shredding the Constitution, torturing prisoners kept in a permanent extralegal limbo, and invading countries that haven’t attacked us, wouldn’t we? And so we get “Islamofascism,” the idea that al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hizbullah, Iraq, Syria, Iran, and every other group or country that doesn’t particularly like America and can be considered vaguely Islamic are all part and parcel of a unified front seeking Middle Eastern, and possibly world, hegemony.

It’s not the first time US policy has operated under this sort of delusion. For decades, we fretted about Communism as though it were a monolithic opponent, despite the fact that the Soviet Union and China despised each other, Vietnam kept invading its Communist neighbors, and so forth. Still, at least the Soviet Union could realistically be seen as an existential threat to the United States, if for no other reason than their nuclear arsenal. The prospect of al-Qaeda destroying the American nation-state is… well, let’s just call it unlikely.

So why the hell have we overreacted like this? Part of it is that some people saw the post-9/11 days as an opportunity: to remake the Middle East in a way that expanded American power, to enhance Presidential powers, or simply to settle old scores. But I think most of it is fear, plain and simple. People who’d come to see the United States as all-powerful, impregnable, and triumphant in the wake of the Cold War suddenly had that certainty stripped away from them. For America to be hurt by a small band armed with nothing but knives and anger was just unthinkable, it had to be something bigger. So we get people publishing wild-eyed articles about “Islamofascists” as though there were an army massed at the border, just waiting for the signal to overrun our defenses, burn down the Capitol, convert us all at gunpoint, and throw burqas on our womenfolk.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so obviously destructive. By letting our fear run wild, we’ve fulfilled our own prophecy, and turned a dangerous but manageable threat into a crisis that threatens our way of life. We’re actively considering an Attorney General nominee who isn’t sure if waterboarding is torture. Our highest court has decided that the Administration can’t be sued by a man whom they kidnapped and tortured. And not content with having invaded Iraq, our Vice President is pushing for a war with Iran.

So thank you, you noble armchair warriors who seek to defend us from the eternal threat of Islamofascism. Without you, we might still have been burdened by habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions, and an intact military. And who can afford such luxuries when our freedom is at stake?

Enjoying the bipartisan tone

On Cal Thomas’s column page at the Jewish World Review, he’s listed as the author of a book entitled Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America. So clearly he’s an individual committed to restoring a civil tone to our political discourse, forging a more respectful debate in which everyone remembers that whatever our differences, we have the good of the nation at heart. So let’s hear what he’s got to say about the ill-timed but well-intentioned Armenian genocide resolution that recently came up in the House. I’m sure it’s gracious, polite, and even-keeled, a shining example of the bipartisan comity he so cherishes.

Are Democrats so cynical that they would stir an already boiling pot in hopes that it would negate whatever success America may finally be having in quelling terrorist acts in Iraq? One would hope that is not the case, but given their leadership’s rhetoric about the war already being lost and their refusal to acknowledge even the slightest progress in Iraq as positive lest it reflect well on the Bush administration, cynicism about their cynical actions might be justified.

Hmm. That wasn’t so much polite and bipartisan as it was an accusation that the Speaker of the House is so eager to make the President look bad that she was willing to start a war between Turkey and the Kurds, with our troops in the middle. Maybe he’s being funny. Yes, that must be it. By “opining” that the Democrats are “traitors,” he’s making an incisive commentary on our political discourse. Let’s see the clever way he defies our expectations and ends with a knowing wink.

Apparently there are limits beyond which even Democrats are not willing to go in their pursuit of political gain. There are some issues that ought to transcend partisanship and this is one of them.

Ah. That wasn’t so much a knowing wink as a backhanded compliment (and by “compliment,” I mean “slap across the face”) to Democrats, who despite their all-consuming thirst for victory at any cost, do have some limits. That seems fair. The Democrats are well-known for their bareknuckle tactics and ruthless smear campaigns. Thank goodness the Republicans would never stoop so low as to exploit a war for political gain.

Anyway, the real reason I bring up this article is to comment on something I’ve been considering a lot lately: the resurgence of the dolchstosslegende. Translating roughly as “dagger-thrust legend,” the term became historically significant in the aftermath of the First World War, as Germans searched for an explanation for their defeat in a war in which their leaders had guaranteed victory. The conclusion reached by many was that they had been somehow betrayed, that malevolent forces within Germany had stabbed their brave fighting men in the back. This belief contributed greatly to the rise of the Nazis, who successfully turned the “backstab” accusation against the Communists, the Social Democrats, and other political adversaries, and ultimately against the Jews.

Kevin Baker wrote a fascinating article for Harper’s last year about the use of similar rhetoric (of the “we were betrayed” sort, not the “let’s kill all non-Aryans and conquer the world” sort) by the American right over the last half-century. The article’s well worth the read, and required reading for anyone interested in understanding modern politics. The idea that America’s problems are due to internal subversion rather than dumb policy has gotten the Republicans a lot of points over the years, they seem unlikely to abandon it anytime soon. Unfortunately, the day we finally decide to leave Iraq may well just be the beginning of the fight over whose fault it was that we left.

Huge Thursday on the Hill

Holy hell, was it a big day in D.C. All manner of stuff flying around on Capitol Hill. We’ll start with the bad news, from the House.

capitol

The House of Representatives held a vote to override the President’s veto of the S-CHIP expansion bill. As y’all remember from 8th-grade civics, you need 2/3 of Congress to vote “Yea” in order to pass a bill over the veto. They fell 13 votes short. To reiterate what I mentioned in an earlier post on this bill, this means that almost 4 million children will continue to lack basic healthcare. 156 members of the United States House of Representatives, in collaboration with the President, have decided that if your parents have the audacity to make enough money to pay rent and buy groceries, but not enough to buy comprehensive private health insurance, then you don’t deserve access to medical care. “No asthma meds, vaccinations, chemo, or routine checkups for you, little Billy. Your parents make a whopping $25,000 a year.”

Best part of the whole thing may have been this sign, unveiled by Rep. Steve King (R-IA):

steveking

I don’t know what to do with this, really, other than to say come on, Iowa. You can do better than this schmuck. (For those wondering, no, S-CHIP doesn’t cover illegal immigrants.)
Now we move across the Rotunda to the Senate. As I mentioned earlier in the week, they’ve been debating a move which would grant retroactive immunity from prosecution to telecom companies that cooperated with the Administration in wiretapping the phones of millions of American citizens. Well, they agreed to the damn thing. Sure, they violated the privacy rights of millions, but that doesn’t mean they ought to be punished in any way for it, right? And that’s where it stood this morning, with the Senate fully prepared to declare that the 4th Amendment is negotiable if you really think you’re doing the right thing.

Until this dude stepped up:

dodd

That’s Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT). Upon hearing that the Senate Democratic leadership had caved on the telecom immunity bill, he announced that he would place a hold upon the bill. A hold, in Senate rules, is a method by which any Senator may prevent a bill from coming to a vote. It tends to be used on nominations and similar action. What Dodd is effectively saying to the Senate is “No, guys, I don’t care how many of you want to do this, I won’t let you give away the 4th Amendment.” It’s an astonishingly courageous act, maybe the ballsiest thing I’ve ever seen a politician do. To stand against 99 colleagues, in the face of constant GOP rhetoric claiming that enforcing our nation’s most basic law is a luxury that will get Americans killed? I’m new here, so I don’t know the rules on this, but is there any way to confer honorary ninja status? Because the good Senator’s certainly worthy in my eyes right now.

That’s it for tonight. There’ll certainly be more tomorrow, there’s always something going on in the world of politricks.

A few quick hits

The Federal Communications Commission is considering rewriting the rules on media ownership. Current rules state that a single company can’t own a TV or radio station and a newspaper within the same media market. The chairman of the FCC, not wanting to unduly burden billionaire media moguls in their ongoing quest for world domination, wants to get rid of this rule. And it makes sense, really. Without all that pesky regulatory work taking up their time, the FCC can get back to its real job: making sure no one can say “fuck” on television.

Fun new controversy on the Iraq front… Remember this guy?

sanchez

Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, US Army (ret.) was commander of U.S. forces in Iraq from mid-2003 to mid-2004. He’s recently emerged from his retirement to level a bit of criticism at the Administration’s policies in that particular quagmire. Now, the irony of that I could comment upon, but I’ll let Jon Stewart cover that (go watch it, Daily Show’s always worth the trip, especially when they don’t even try to resist the filthy play on a political figure’s name).

What is really interesting is the dilemma it brings to light (which Fred Kaplan covers brilliantly here): when is it acceptable, in a constitutional republic, for generals to question civilian leaders? On the one hand, I really do hope that if Bush orders a strike on Iran, that the Joint Chiefs do everything they possibly can to dissuade him. On the other, I don’t much care for the precedent of military commanders overruling civilian authority. Admittedly, this is the sort of thing that’s less of a problem when the civilian leadership isn’t delusional.

Speaking of which, the only President we’ve got is actively discussing World War III, which is always reassuring. The thing that’s most frightening about the quote is that he wasn’t addressing his comment to Iran, but to Russia, the other country on Earth with several thousand nuclear weapons. I don’t really think he’s envisioning a war against Russia over Iran, but still, this sort of belligerent commentary seems… oh, I don’t know, foolish? Anyone with a better adjective, go ahead and suggest it.

Cheney 101

I’m watching Cheney’s Law right now, since the Sox game prevented me from watching the initial airing, and so far it’s fantastic, there will absolutely be full posting on it in the afternoon. But while I’m watching, I think it’s a good idea to provide y’all with some background on Cheney and his influence. After all, a true ninja can not achieve victory without first knowing the battlefield.

First, the Unitary Executive Theory. This is the basis, the legal wellspring of every move Cheney et al has made toward increasing executive powers. Here’s how it works. A number of lawyers working for Attorney General Edwin Meese, back in the Reagan years, were asked to find a legal basis for pushing back against the renewed Congressional powers that came about after Watergate and the investigations of the Church Committee. Their conclusion was that the Constitution gave the President total control over the entire Executive Branch, free of any restraint by either Congress or the courts. They cited as their central piece of evidence Federalist #70, in which Alexander Hamilton argued for a unified executive.

Now, to anyone reading the piece without an agenda, Hamilton was explaining why having one President was a better idea than having, for example, a Roman-style triumvirate, not why the United States should have a totally unaccountable executive. This didn’t seem to bother Meese’s lawyers. Now those same lawyers, and their disciples, are in charge. So we have the Administration’s top lawyers, clinging to the basic Nixonian principle that (to quote the man himself) “When the President does it, that means that it’s not illegal.”

Second, the “signing statement.” We all remember our basic lessons on how a bill becomes a law, right? If not, take a moment below to refresh:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ[/youtube]

So Cheney’s boys have added another step to the process. After the President signs a law, he can attach a statement to said law, which lays out how (or whether) he plans to enforce it. For example, the McCain Amendment of 2006 (scroll down to SA 1977) prohibited “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” of anyone held in the custody of the U.S. Department of Defense. However, a signing statement attached to said bill made it clear that the President has the right to ignore that ban entirely if, in his judgment, the defense of the nation requires it. Fun, right? If we’re going to run the government this way, one begins to wonder why we need Congress at all.

The final thing we’ll go over is the idea of “Commander-in-Chief,” which is clearly central to Bush’s self-image. Article II of the Constitution declares that “the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” Which means, despite his constant claims otherwise, that George W. Bush is not my Commander-in-Chief. He’s my President (not that I’m happy about it), but as I’m a civilian, thus not a member of either the Army or Navy, that’s all he is. So whenever someone tells you that you should believe the President, because he’s “our Commander-in-Chief,” then unless you’re a current member of the armed forces, they’re full of it. Why does the Administration use the term so often, then, you may ask. Because commanders aren’t accountable, whereas presidents, being elected representatives, are.

Sorry to turn an otherwise relaxed site into a lecture hall, but without this background, this week’s posts won’t be nearly as interesting. And the last thing I want to do is bore y’all into catatonia in my second week here. Till next time, folks.

12 Captains on the War

Unbelievably great op-ed in the Washington Post this morning. Following in the footsteps of their comrades who wrote for the New York Times a few months back, 12 former Army captains submitted an opinion piece outlining what they observed in their time in Iraq. Strangely, it’s a bit different from what their superior officers have been telling Congress.

What does Iraq look like on the ground? It’s certainly far from being a modern, self-sustaining country. Many roads, bridges, schools and hospitals are in deplorable condition. Fewer people have access to drinking water or sewage systems than before the war. And Baghdad is averaging less than eight hours of electricity a day.

It’s the way they conclude their piece, though, that’s most worthy of note:

There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.

This brings up one of the things that’s bugged me about the Iraq war (and for that matter the whole “Global War on Terror” concept) for a long time now. The Administration keeps telling us that the security of our nation depends on beating the terrorists, and on creating a stable, democratic Iraq. But they clearly don’t mean it.

If we’re in a war for our very survival, then where’s the $2-a-gallon tax on gasoline to finance increased security measures and shut off the flow of oil money to autocratic, terrorist-breeding governments in the Middle East? Where are the draft notices going out to conscript an Army big enough to actually secure a stable Iraq? Where’s the recruitment drive by the CIA to find American citizens who understand Middle Eastern languages and culture? Where’s the grand alliance of Western nations banding together against a common threat? Why didn’t any of this happen?

It’s certainly not because the country wasn’t willing. Hell, right after 9/11 people were practically falling over each other trying to figure out ways to band together and help out. So why the hell didn’t the Administration use that energy, that desire, and try to unite the country in solving this difficult problem?

Because they’re not interested in solving problems. Anytime a problem comes up, the modern GOP is interested in two things: (to quote one of Aaron Sorkin’s finer pieces) making you afraid of it, and telling you who’s to blame for it. “Sure, we could tap into one of our nation’s greatest strengths, its diverse immigrant population, and hire citizens of Arab descent to help our intelligence agencies, but instead, let’s just arrest a bunch of them for no reason. That way, we look like we’re rounding up terrorists, and when the Democrats protest, we can say they’re coddling bin Laden! It’s win-win!”

Alright, I think that should get a bit of cynicism out of my system for a while. In the meantime, this special is going to air tonight on PBS at 9 EDT, and then it’ll be online at www.pbs.org/frontline:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLz5Ja_pius[/youtube]

Once I catch it, I’ll definitely be posting about it. I have a feeling you’ll be reading a lot about Cheney and the “Unitary Executive Theory” around here in the next week.

“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.”

So right now Congress is fighting over whether to grant big telecom companies retroactive immunity to prosecution for having violated the privacy rights of millions of customers by allowing the government to spy on them. (Big campaign contributors and fear of terrorism vs. Constitutional principle… let’s see, who do we think will win that one?)

The newest salvo in the ongoing fight over whether the government should have the power to eavesdrop on anyone without a warrant comes to you below, from Fox News:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQgQRL4lXzA[/youtube]

Few things. First, here’s how FISA works, briefly. There are, as makes sense, three basic types of communication: domestic-domestic, which is covered by the 4th Amendment; foreign-foreign, which isn’t; and domestic-foreign, which is what FISA addresses. Effectively, it says that if the NSA, CIA, or any other intelligence-gathering service wishes to listen to calls, read e-mails, etc., that are going between someone inside the U.S. and someone outside the U.S., they need to obtain a warrant first. That’s it.

Now, there was a funky loophole in the law which became prominent as communications tech became more advanced. Namely, what happens if someone in Syria is talking to someone in Pakistan, but the call is routed through Michigan? It’s clearly a foreign-to-foreign call, but it’s also kind of domestic. So the law was amended recently to close that loophole. This makes sense, and despite what’s claimed toward the end of the clip, neither Silvestre Reyes nor any other prominent Democrats opposed the change. (Yes, Fox News, lying to its viewers, I too nearly died of shock.)

Anyway, I’ve a feeling we’re going to hear the tale of these dead soldiers a whole lot in the coming days, and a few things need to be clear. First, there’s a provision in FISA for emergencies. Since foreign intelligence gathering is, on occasion, time-sensitive, the government’s allowed to engage in surveillance without a warrant for up to 72 hours, as long as they then apply for one and can prove that there was no time to apply normally. “Three of our guys were just kidnapped and we need to find out where they are” would seem to qualify as an emergency. In fact, it did, the thing that held up the surveillance was that no one could find a high-ranking official at the Justice Dept. to sign off on it (what with half of them resigning either in protest or disgrace), not that “the law was cumbersome,” as is claimed in the clip.

Secondly, as I said earlier, the foreign-to-foreign-but-kinda-domestic loophole which was ever so slightly problematic in this situation (and I can’t stress this enough) has been fixed already. Not only that, but with overwhelming support from both parties, because it made sense to do so. So why would the GOP bring up this story now?

For the same reason they put a provision that hurt unions in the bill establishing the Homeland Security Department, waited until just before the ’02 election to vote on Iraq, and forced a vote on expanded surveillance powers just before Congress went on recess this summer. For the same reason that Saxby Chambliss put Max Cleland next to bin Laden, and Rudy Guiliani is running for President of 9/11. Because no matter how low their approval ratings may be, how outrageous the powers they’re asking for are, they’ve figured out that they can get whatever they want as long as they scare everyone into thinking that Americans will die if they don’t get their way.

Now they’re gearing up to do it again, and they’ll keep doing it. Unless. Unless we realize that fear makes us stupid, and remember that unwise decisions will only create more things that go bump in the night. We’ve done the fear thing for a few years now. Let’s give wisdom a shot, shall we?

A proud day for the Law

I should have posted on this a few days back, but a few days back I wasn’t writing here yet, so I hope y’all can excuse the delay.

supreme court

Last Tuesday, the Supreme Court got handed the case of Khaled al-Masri, a German citizen who was suing the Administration. Now, why would a German citizen feel the need to sue the American government? Glad you asked. Turns out that in 2003, he was snatched by American agents, flown to a prison in Afghanistan, and held for a year as they interrogated him about his connections to terrorists. Turned out, of course, that he had none, and that our guys had been using their “enhanced interrogation techniques” (which totally aren’t torture, because only bad guys torture people, and we’re the good guys!) on an innocent man. Strangely enough, he’s a trifle annoyed about the situation, and decided to sue.

The case got all the way to the Supremes, who promptly decided that they wouldn’t bother to even hear the case, deferring to the Bush Administration’s claim that a public trial would expose “state secrets.” Two things came quickly to mind.

First, as far as “secrets” go… Presumably the secrets in question are the interrogation methods that were used on al-Masri, and the Administration’s claim is that if they’re revealed, terrorists will be able to prepare for them, thus thwarting our noble intelligence agents. Now, diligent journalism from all over the globe has already uncovered evidence of temperature manipulation, beatings, stress positions, sleep deprivation, religious and sexual degradation, and waterboarding. So the obvious question comes to mind: if this is already public, what sort of stuff are they doing that they think hasn’t been revealed? The mind simply boggles.

Second (and this is something I’d only just learned recently), the “state secrets” privilege in this country is based on a Supreme Court case from 1953. The families of several men who died in the crash of a test bomber sued to gain access to the accident report, in hopes of finding out what had happened to their loved ones. The government refused, claiming that releasing the report would expose important military secrets. It being the early years of the Cold War, the Court deferred to this claim and ruled against the families. Several years ago, the documents in question became public, and it turns out that there was nothing in them that could reasonably qualify as a legitimate military secret. It was the classic example of a government hiding a screwup behind the “Classified” stamp.

What this all means is pretty straightforward. The Court, by refusing to hear the case, has tacitly admitted that the government can kidnap a person, hold them against their will, subject them to treatment that any rational individual would consider torture, all without accusing them of a crime or allowing them access to counsel. And, if this person should by some miracle manage to exercise their basic rights and sue for redress, the government can simply conjure the all-purpose defense of “national security secrets” and get away with it.

magna carta

That’s the Magna Carta, the one worthwhile thing King John (yeah, the guy Robin Hood stole from) ever did. Among other things, it set down on paper the right of a citizen not to be arrested or imprisoned “except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” That was almost 800 years ago.

Good thing the Bush Administration is around to protect us from such quaint medieval notions. And even better that the pesky courts didn’t try to interfere. Because if they had, the terrorists would win, and we all know that the terrorists would take our freedom away.

GOP completes quest for the Holy Grail of Irony

“…we’re standing on our principle that poor kids ought to come first.”

Which prominent member of Congress said that this morning? Was it:

A. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, explaining the plan of House Democrats to keep pushing for an expansion of the S-CHIP program despite President Bush’s veto, or
B. House Minority Leader John Boehner, declaring his intention to support said veto?
It was, weirdly enough, B. Now, I’ve been following Republican doublespeak for a while now, but this may well set a new standard for absurdity. Follow the illogic with me, folks.

The United States, alone among the big industrial democracies, relies upon the private sector to provide healthcare to the majority of its citizens. (Read this for an amazing summary of the problems inherent in that system.) As a result, Americans pay about twice as much per capita for medical care than their Western European counterparts. Not all of us are left completely out to dry, however, as senior citizens are covered by Medicare and those who live below the federal poverty level ($20,650 a year for a family of four) are eligible for Medicaid.
However, as healthcare costs increase and wages remain constant, a growing number of families have found themselves in the unfortunate position of being “too wealthy” to qualify for Medicaid, but too poor to afford private coverage. Recognizing this problem, Congress enacted S-CHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) in 1997. What it does, in a nutshell, is extend Medicaid eligibility to children in families whose incomes lie above the poverty line, but below a certain threshold set by individual states.
So to review… This is a program which gives healthcare to children who would otherwise be unable to receive it. Its expansion would increase the number of children who get said healthcare by almost 4 million. And by supporting a veto that would prevent this bill from passing, John Boehner and his fellow Republicans are supporting “the principle that poor kids ought to come first.”

How on earth does someone say that without the irony causing their brain to explode?

More on this fight later, but I couldn’t let that quote go without some sort of comment.