My letter to Glenn Greenwald, how about some commitments to demand from presidential candidates?

Mr. Greenwald,

I'd like to suggest that you would be an ideal person to formulate and explain a list of ten or so commitments which voters should demand of candidates for president (of both parties, but particularly Democrats), to reverse some of the worst excesses of the present administration. Things like: no warrantless wiretapping without compliance with FISA; no more signing statements asserting the right to act above the law; full compliance with the War Powers Act in spirit and letter, restoration of habeas corpus and endorsement of the right not to be held without due process, etc. You, much better than I, can think of and prioritize what's really important.

I fear that many of Bush's 'unitary executive' powers will be more than comfy for Democratic presidents in the future unless it's made clear to them now that the people want their Constitutional government back. It seems to me a little holding of their feet to the fire, demanding that they commit now to reversing these horrible developments, is in order.

Thank you.

Pathetic, W.

Josh Marshall about says it all with regard to the now completely pathetic explanations for the failed war coming out of President Bush's mouth:

Like I said, whatever. I know this reads like an expression of cynicism or disengagement. But while the president's chatter, with its brainlessness and brazenness, drives many to distraction, I think this is the only appropriate response. Anyone watching what's happening can see that what the president is talking about bears no relation to what's actually happening in Iraq -- a fact well confirmed by the fact that polls show no change in the public's take on what's happening in response to the president's speech. Primitive animals will sometimes keep chattering or twitching their muscles even after their heads have been cut off. And that's probably the best analogy today to the president's continuing enunciation of his policies.

The president's continuing power as commander-in-chief, behind a wall of 1/3+ support in the Congress, is key. His arguments aren't. They have simply predeceased his presidency.

The sad thing about all this is the victims: soldiers still dying and being injured for no legitimate American interests, Iraqis who by now would, on the whole, have been better off had we never been involved there, and the absolute fiasco that is American foreign policy and damage to its repuation in the world for decades to come.

Bush already setting up Dolschtoss

Here's the conclusion of Krugman's column today (unfortunately behind Times Select wall):

Here’s how I see it: At this point, Mr. Bush is looking forward to replaying the political aftermath of Vietnam, in which the right wing eventually achieved a rewriting of history that would have made George Orwell proud, convincing millions of Americans that our soldiers had victory in their grasp but were stabbed in the back by the peaceniks back home.

What all this means is that the next president, even as he or she tries to extricate us from Iraq — and prevent the country’s breakup from turning into a regional war — will have to deal with constant sniping from the people who lied us into an unnecessary war, then lost the war they started, but will never, ever, take responsibility for their failures.

Only a right-wing ideologue could disagree with this, I'd say. But in actual fact, they fully intend to use this Big Lie in the future to try to shift blame for 'losing the war' to Democrats.
.....
-- * Dolschtoss (n. -Ger.): 'a stab in the back.' Used by Nazis as a code word for alleged betrayal by Weimar liberals in acquiescing to Versailles strictures, among other things.

Moveon.org: General "Betray Us" and double standard in political rhetoric

Glenn is absolutely right that there's a huge double standard in the "permissible" rhetoric of pro-war and anti-war politics. When Fox News' most rabid right-wing loudmouth hosts (or fawningly approved guests like Michael Reagan) do things like call for Howard Dean to be "arrested" and "hung for treason," everybody just chuckles at the rhetorical excess, but when an anti-war ad refers to General "Betray-Us" in reference to the general's demonstrable deliberate political shilling for the administration and its failed policy, and in reference to the cooked numbers in his testimony before Congress, which are deceptive in a deliberate effort to influence policies that the majority of Americans now believe will harm America's interests, even the "liberal media" (like Time's Joe Klein) gets all in a lather about the "grave slander."

Slander (or libel), it should be pointed out, requires untruth, and opinion isn't slander. I read the moveon.org ad. Whatever you think of the use of the loaded pun (at worst, in my view, dumb because it stirred up a pointless controversy)... it isn't slander. We do still have a First Amendment in this country, at least for the present.

Seriously, how can we NOT impeach this President?

This (quoted in full below) is as good a brief explanation as you’ll find of exactly how the President, by his own admission, condoned and/or ordered the commission of innumerable felonies by secretly subverting and massively violating the existing FISA law during the period 2001–2005, including by pressuring telecommunications companies to do so. Whatever you may think of the ambiguous changes Congress has since made to this law (in my case, rank horror), the fact remains that this occurred, and it is admitted. If you have enough faith in “leaders” to think this is OK... we’ll just let it go this time, next time how ‘bout letting us know in advance?.... you sure have a lot more trust in the essential goodness of American politicians, and a lot less belief in the checks-and-balances system of the Constitution that served us pretty well before this century, than I.

I doubt any of my farflung correspondents entirely buys the Administration’s Unitary Executive theory, which essentially says what Nixon said during the Frost interviews in 1977, ‘when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.’

So, doubters: since it was unquestionably illegal, and kept secret from the people and Congress, I have to ask: exactly how can this be tolerated in a society supposedly ‘of laws, not of men’? What rational reason can there be not to impeach this president? Please? Anyone?

If you answer, because it can't be done, politically, OK, but I disagree. We cannot let this stand without at least registering that it was fought against with all we had. We've already wasted two years.
...

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell yesterday gave a strange and rambling interview concerning the new FISA amendments, and several commentators -- including Spencer Ackerman, Digby and Jeralyn Merritt -- have discussed various oddities in what he said. I want to focus on a different, and I think highly revealing, aspect of his remarks.

Unintentionally, McConnell articulated what is an unusually clear and straightforward explanation as to the state of federal law regarding eavesdropping on Americans by our government -- unusually clear particularly for a Bush official, but even in general. McConnell explained:

"The reason that the FISA law was passed in 1978 was an arrangement was worked out between the Congress and the administration, we did not want to allow this community to conduct surveillance, electronic
surveillance, of Americans for foreign intelligence unless you had a warrant, so that was required."

That is exactly what happened, and the NSA scandal has always been, and always will be, this simple and crystal clear. In 1978, the American people responded to the discovery of decades-long abuses of secret eavesdropping powers by making it a felony for any government official to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant. What McConnell describes an "arrangement worked out between the Congress and the administration" is what most people call a "federal law," but McConnell's basic point -- that "we did not want to allow th[e intelligence] community to conduct surveillance . . . of Americans . . . unless you had a warrant, so that was required" -- is exactly correct.

But in 2001, George Bush ordered the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans in violation of that very law, and continued to do so for the next five years at least. Bush ordered the NSA to commit felonies; we now that he did so; and nothing has happened. It is and always has been as clear as it is extraordinary.

Equally extraordinary is McConnell's admission -- which marks, I elieve, the first time this has been acknowledged -- that private telecommunications companies enabled this lawbreaking by giving the administration access to the conversations of Americans with no warrants:

"Now the second part of the issue was under the president's program, the terrorist surveillance program, the private sector had assisted us. Because if you're going to get access you've got to have a partner and they were being sued."

McConnell went on to explain that the number one priority for the administration regarding FISA now is to demand that Congress make further FISA revisions by providing retroactive immunity to the telecom companies to ensure that there are no consequences from their breaking of the law:

"Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies. So my position was we have to provide liability protection to these private sector entities. So that was part of the request. . . . The issue that we did not address, which has to be addressed is the liability protection for the private sector now is proscriptive, meaning going forward. We've got a retroactive problem. When I went through and briefed the various senators and congressmen, the issue was: all right, look, we don't want to work that right now, it's too hard because we want to find out about some issues of the past. So what I recommended to the administration is, 'Let's take that off the table for now and take it up when Congress reconvenes in September.' . . . No, the retroactive liability protection has got to be addressed."

Think about how amazing this is. McConnell clearly described that in 1978, we enacted a law prohibiting warrantless eavesdropping; the Bush administration broke that law repeatedly; and the telecommunications companies actively participated in that lawbreaking.

And now -- as a matter of national security -- the Bush administration is demanding that Congress pass a new law declaring that telecom companies are immune from any and all consequences -- both civil and criminal -- in the event they are found to have violated the law. It is hard to imagine open contempt for the rule of law being expressed more explicitly than this.

What possible reason is there to protect anyone -- including telecom companies -- with a special law enacted to declare that they are relieved of all accountability for illegal behavior? And the premise of this argument is even more dangerous than the conclusion: it is all premised on the claim that these companies were only acting at the behest of George Bush, and therefore were entitled, even obligated, to do what they did. In other words, the President has the power to order private actors to break the law and when those orders are obeyed, the
private actors are immune from the consequences of their lawbreaking, because they acted at the Leader's behest.

That government officials like McConnell feel so comfortable openly admitting that the government broke the law, obtaining amendments to legalize that behavior after the fact, and then demanding immunity for the lawbreakers, demonstrates how severely the rule of law has been eroded over the last six years. It is not hyperbole to say that government lawbreaking has become formally legitimized.

So much of this is due to the profound failure of the media and our various "experts" simply to state the basic facts here -- that it is a felony to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants and yet that is what the Bush administration did. Instead, we have self-proclaimed "experts" like the Brookings Institutions' Benjamin Wittes trying to show how smart and thoughtful and knowledgeable he is (and explicitly describing himself this way) by writing in The New Republic articles claiming that these matters are far too complicated for even the most thoughtful experts (like him) to understand, let alone the hordes of simpletons acting as though they know Bush did anything wrong here by breaking the law.

Bush-defending Beltway elites have continuously clouded what is a clear issue of lawbreaking by engaging in all sorts of ill-informed "hand-wringing" and obfuscation masquerading as angst-ridden, Serious deliberation. Hence, as always, we have had two types of opinions dominating our mainstream discourse on the issue of patently illegal eavesdropping: (1) hard-core absolute Bush apologists, and (2) those whose overriding goal is to demonstrate how reasonable and thoughtful and Serious they are by stressing how important it is to fight The Terrorists and how complex and serious and terribly difficult and therefore murky these issues are. Mike McConnell therefore knows that he can expressly admit lawbreaking and demand immunity for it because there will never be any clear voices condemning it.

In the wake of the debacle of the Democrats' FISA capitulation, many
angry Bush critics have focused on the 6-month sunset provision in order to hope that Democrats will allow this law to lapse. That will never happen. Why would it? The administration will simply use the same Terrorist fear-mongering rhetoric and Democrats will respond in exactly the same way. Why would anyone think it will be any different in six months?

The real open issue is not whether the Democratic Congress will un-do the damage they have done. The issue, as McConnell makes clear, is whether the Congress will submit to still further administration demands by granting retroactive immunity to all lawbreakers (governmental and private lawbreakers alike). That is plainly what the administration is after, and it is hard to have much hope that they will be denied what they seek. McConnell's comments yesterday suggested strongly that Democrats were prepared this last round to include immunity, but only requested more time to determine how best that should be done and to obtain some information they have sought about past eavesdropping ("the issue was all right, look, we don't want to work that right now, it's too hard because we want to find out about some issues of the past").

Basically, then, the administration's posture towards Congress is now this: "we have been refusing to provide you any information about what we did over the last six years, and we will provide you some of that information only on the condition that you agree to provide full immunity for the consequences of any lawbreaking." Between (a) the Democratic Congress completing its capitulation to the administration's demands by granting full immunity and (b) reversing themselves on FISA after the 6-month period elapses, it hardly requires much consideration to know which is the far more likely outcome.

Glenn Greenwald

Greenwald: Congress unpopular because they aren't doing what we want them to do

Glenn is in particularly fine fettle today and yesterday. He argues persuasively that the usual right-wing mantra about the Democratic Congress being almost as unpopular as Bush is total nonsense. The reason the Congress is polling low, as he proves with targeted poll questions, is that Democrats themselves are angry at Congress, but not for failing to "cooperate" with Bush, but for failing to stand up to him, and in particular for failing to end the War. Today's post elaborates that the usual conventional wisdom that Americans dislike investigations is in fact, just plain not true.

Now, it's become clear that many Congressional Democrats intend to give heart to the Republicans and vote to 'stay the course'... prolonging the War even further. These people just don't get it. By a large majority Americans want them to defy the Administration and get out of Iraq. If they don't do it, they will continue to be reviled and despised.

I just hope none of the Democratic presidential candidates... like Hillary Clinton, who seems to be drifting in this direction, misreads the Washington tea leaves yet again and ends up supporting some kind of continuing presence in Iraq, because they gotta know it'll never be over till we decide it's time for it to be over, and undergo whatever hardship is involved, and just get out.

How hard is that, really, to understand? Not very, since about 70% of the electorate gets it perfectly fine.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

R.I.P.: Right not to be imprisoned without trial; 1215-2001

Greenwald makes the excellent point that the Padilla guilty verdict, although dubious and certain-to-be-appealed due to the long history of extralegal procedures (including, unquestionably, torture) carried out against him, actually demonstrates the fallacy of the Bush administration's rationale for keeping executive imprisonment without charges: once they finally did charge him, he was convicted, so the claim they made that it was "too dangerous" to try him is obvious nonsense.

Elsewhere, Glenn has pointed out that the right to be charged with a crime, and not to be imprisoned merely at the whim or accusation of the king, has been Anglo-Saxon law since the Magna Charta. It was, in fact, one of the key provisions of that document. (In case you've forgotten, the MC dates from 1215, when the nobles forced King John the One and Only to sign it at Runnymede).

The Bush administration still claims the right to do this, upheld by an extremely right-wing Fourth Circuit panel. Supreme Court review will eventually occur, so there's hope for the restoration of our 800-year old rights.

**Please!** Don't misinterpret the above to be some kind of defense of Padilla. I'm not defending him. But the rights demonstrably guaranteed in law since long before the American constitution, and systematically violated by this Administration, must be protected. And if there is anyone who still claims, 'yeah, but it's wartime, and rights are always suspended in wartime,' I would ask that person to seriously ask himself if he really believes that this kind of war would ever end.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/16/padilla/index.html

Response to Patriotic Rap Video

I received a link from a relative to a patriotic rap on u-tube, by a "bad-ass" African-American marine who celebrated the patriotic willingness to sacrifice by fighting for our country. (Sorry, no link). This is my response.

I appreciate this because Americans need to be reminded ... frequently ... that only a small group of people are willing to actually serve the nation in the military. We treat our military without nearly enough honor, especially in the way they are underpaid and receive inadequate services, despite taking risks and suffering death and injury at rates that most Americans would never voluntarily accept. That's one of the reasons why I am a strong supporter of much better pay for our military, including Guard and Reserves; more guarantees that they will not be aked to always bear the total brunt, being sent back over and over for repeat tours; more guarantees of support for themselves and their families, free education, and, especially, free medical care and adequate income for life if they suffer disabling injury. (Shamefully, reservists and national guard do not get medical care beyond two years). These are the kinds of things that brought on an era of robust prosperity and peace in the era after World War II.

But patriotic messages like the one you sent are sometimes misinterpreted as endorsement for policies which, I believe, have not only unnecessarily put servicemen and women in harm's way without their being a compelling national interest for doing so, but have actually made our country less, not more secure. Support for the troops is the right thing to do... it's also right to ask the people to sacrifice a little, at least, to make sure they are taken care of and supported in real, practical ways. But that doesn't translate to support for unwise policies that have involved America in an dangerous and ultimately counterproductive conflict in Iraq, and which seem poised to involve us in still more dangerous and unnecessary conflict in Iran and elsewhere. The military doesn't make policy, and it's a soldier's responsibility to carry out what he's asked to do; but unfortunately there is no guarantee that what they're asked to do is wise policy.

I think it's very sad that we seem to have become so determined to project military power against those who have not attacked us, nor threatened to attack us... even at the expense of prosecuting the just action against those, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, who actually did attack us. We may support international action against genocide, but we must return to a policy of aggressive diplomacy; aggressive peacemaking, first and foremost, with military action always a last resort, and only to protect the vital interests of the United States, never to project power or to try to remake the world in our image. "Blessed are the peacemakers," as the Christian prophet, Jesus, said. We must always look for ways to defuse conflicts; to remove from our own actions causes of conflict and hatred towards us and others; to prevent war rather than cause it. These are the responsibilities of civilized, moral human beings everwhere and always. And for the main part, our country has upheld these ideals better than most. But I think we need a new infusion of these goals and intentions, and a major rethinking of how we can attain them.

Categorizing people as "enemies" becuase of their religion, however dangerous some of their beliefs may be, isn't helpful. Sometimes conflict is inevitable, but great care must be taken to minimize our role in causing it. This is part of our responsibility, too, as people of peaceful religions (or ideologies), who hew to decency, universality, and virtue... not violence, oppression and exclusion, as our ideals. I fear that much of what has occurred since 9/11 has failed these tests. It's time for a completely new vision of where we're headed and how we can and should best relate in the world, including how to best respond to the real threats that do exist.

Jane Mayer: Black sites

The extent to which, under this administration, we as a nation have lost our moral compass, is documented in Jane Mayer's excellent article in the New Yorker, available online. It is absolutely sickening to realize that we have come to this pass as a society. I would hope that every candidate for office in both parties will be relentlessly queried as to whether they will repudiate this kind of use of torture by American officials once and for all. If not, they should be shunned and shamed back into private life, where they should retreat to some hole somewhere, because I hold it as absolute: civilized human beings do not commit or tolerate torture.

Warrantless Surveillance and National Security, a debate

In memory of Nagasaki, August 8, 1945; may it never happen again.

I've been in a dialog with a friend about, generally, the justification of illegal surveillance for national security. The debate spills over into the whole subject of credible threat of domestic major terrorism, and what's being done about it. Below is the last go-round in an e-mail exchange.

My friend:

I am not worried about ANY administration during a war spying or wiretapping those whom they believe are attempting to injure citizens. I really don't think that the administration or any administration for that matter NEEDS any'permission' to wiretap or spy on anyone they choose as they'll do it anyway and then deny it...so what else is new. It may be warrantless, but it isn't unwarranted in my opinion. If there weren't people trying to kill us at home, then I would feel as you do now...as I did during Nixon's administration, or the subsequent discovery of such things routinely happening. Those are wrong because they're not national security issues (even though they might say they are)....

and no...I really don't think I'm paranoid about their wanting to kill us here. So we'll just differ on that one and hope for godsake that such events never unfold here. Personally, I wouldn't take the risk...certainly history is on my side of this one.

Me:

I didn't mean to impugn your views as paranoid. Poor choice of words. I just meant that that particular fear, which has been much discussed (i.e., Musharraf falls, al Qaida takes over and gets Pakistan's nukes), fails to take a number of factors into account that actually make that particular outcome so unlikely that it isn't worth the time to worry about it. (Not that there aren't plenty of other security concerns to worry about; and not that a wise government wouldn't have contingency plans even for these less-than-likely kinds of scenarios; I hope ours does).

You're right, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't discount that there is a significant danger of terrorist attack, but I also don't expect you to agree with me about my assessment of it and my views of what should be done about it. Because it's only natural that people with different perspectives will look at the same situation, and reach different conclusions.

But ask yourself. If this administration, with its supposed secret intelligence that we're not privy to, really believed, as you do, that the danger of nuclear or other grand-scale wmd internal terrorist attack is so extreme, as to justify throwing out the 4th amendment (because that's what they've done, among other abuses of power), wouldn't they take serious action on some other rather obvious fronts? Wouldn't they tell the shipping companies their bottom line is less important than security, so we're going to spend the money, and make some sacrifices in the free flow of commerce, to make ports secure? Wouldn't they make an energy security "Manhattan Project" a highest national priority, because independence from Mideast Oil is so obviously a longterm strategic imperative? Wouldn't they at least encourage American youth to join the military, instead of sending National Guard and Reservists, who don't even get lifetime medical care if they're injured, for two and three tours of duty? (When have you heard Bush or Cheney ask for any sacrifice?) Wouldn't they distance themselves (at least) from the regime in Saudi Arabia, which is clearly playing both sides? Wouldn't they focus their war on where the terrorists are, not on some failed neoconservative dream of Empire? Wouldn't they ask the American civilian population to make some sacrifices, instead of cutting taxes in "wartime" and running up the worst deficits in history? I just don't buy it. The danger is real, but not extreme, and, even if it were, it does not justify this abrogation of the constitution.

The "warranted" surveillance you're talking about can and should be done legally. I've never said we shouldn't pursue domestic intelligence. We have in place a system that allows for this, and the argument that it isn't working is, I'm convinced, entirely bogus. I've read reams about this subject, and I'm totally convinced that's true. When a government asks for and gets secretive powers it doesn't need and uses national security as a pretext, watch out. We've been down this road before, with some real ugly results. This will likely be much worse if it isn't reversed. And the effects will have nothing to do with national security.

OK, I know, you don't agree, which is fine. People differ. I listen to what you've said, and I read what you sent me to read, but I'm not convinced.

I mentioned (before and above) several things that are really, really obvious that we should do to increase our security from domestic terrorist attack. Until those things are done, I can't take the fear-mongering of this administration too seriously, because I don't believe they believe their own story line. It just doesn't add up. They're more interested in preserving their domestic political power and preserving right-wing government, and that's the real reason they want to trash the constitution.

And having reiterated all that, I'll concur, let's hope and pray it never happens. I don't believe this issue (illegal surveillance) has anything to do with preventing it, but to tell you the truth, the other failures I mentioned above actually do worry me quite a bit, and I have not seen any significant interest in addressing them to make us safer in either party. I hope the next administration, even if it's (oh, the pain! the horror!) Republican, will do something about those problems, which to my mind are far more serious issues of national security.

Senator Feingold on Warrantless Surveillance Shame

Thank you, Russ Feingold:

"Six years ago, in the aftermath of 9/11, Congress rammed through the USA PATRIOT Act with little consideration of what that bill actually contained. Five years ago, Congress authorized a reckless and ill-advised war in Iraq. One year ago, Congress passed the deeply flawed Military Commissions Act. And late last week, a Democratic Congress passed legislation that dramatically expands the government's ability to conduct warrantless wiretapping, which could affect innocent Americans. It is clear that many congressional Democrats have not learned from those earlier mistakes, two of which happened when Democrats controlled the Senate. Once again, Congress has buckled to pressure and intimidation by the administration. . . .

"The American people see through these tactics, and don't buy the president's attempts to use the threat of terrorism to get what he wants any more. Unfortunately, 16 Senate Democrats and an Independent, as well as 41 House Democrats were all too willing last week to let the president successfully employ this ruse yet again. . . . After all the wrong-doing by this administration, it was disheartening to see Congress bow to its demands one more time."

FISA "Reform:" In Memoriam 4th Amendment, R.I.P.

The Democratic-controlled (allegedly) Congress has capitulated to the Bush White House's demand that they abrogate the 4th Amendment by passing of Administration bill to legalize Warrantless Wiretapping. This is bad news, folks, even though the Mainstream Media has scarcely mentioned it.

Greenwald, of course, has written extensively on this subject, which is the main topic of his book How Would a Partiot Act? He has often pointed out that by giving in to fear-mongering over the potential for terrorism, we have repudiated the basic bargain Franklin referred to when he said "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." And what ever happened to the American society that heard another Franklin (FDR) remind us that fear is itself to be feared, for it can defeat us more easily than external enemies.

One more nail in the coffin of American representative government, a sick puppy indeed by this time.

At one time, I would have been confident that the Courts would not let this obviously unconstitutional legislation stand, but now, I feel no such confidence.

Requiescat in pace, O Constitution. Maybe someday a reformed court will say no to this. Otherwise, a basic bill-of-rights principle of the constitution will have been scrapped for good.

O'Hanlon and Pollack not credible cheerleaders

Read Greenwald's critique of O'Hanlon and Pollack's non-credibility as cheerleaders for the New Way Forward. My comment, as posted:

I think the point Glenn makes at the end of Update (II) is important. As I read the main piece, I was thinking that some would criticize the analysis because almost everything quoted from O'Hanlon was from 2003, when many people were taken in by the War fever and believed that the whole mess would end well. But it's well worth noting that O'Hanlon and many other early-on war boosters only started criticizing the war policies when it was inescapably obvious that things were going badly, i.e. after the Spring of 2004.

I think Glenn's thesis is fundamentally sound: that people who demonstrated extremely poor judgment, understanding, and foresight n the first year of this war, when many others saw reality far more accurately, have no credibility to lecture us now on how we should be giving the policies of this administration yet one more chance to defy reason and the obviously untenable situation there, and snatch victory from failure.

Very Scary: Blumenthal's Unauthorized Visit to the Christians United for Israel Convention

This is really, really scary. Notice how the so very moderate and serious Sen. Lieberman embraces this lunatic Hagee and has nothing but nicey nice words for extremist former Sen. Rick Santorum (forntunately dumped in the 2006 election). (Includes video).

Medical Care for Wounded War Veterans

I listened to the piece on NPR this morning on care for returning war veterans with unbridled horror. I suppose I was somewhat negligently ignorant, but I did not know that reservists and National Guard troops only received two years of medical care, regardless of injury.

This is a terrible, really horrible, national shame. Congress must correct this travesty immediately. Anyone who serves in combat and suffers injury is owed medical care for life, among other benefits. At minimum. I just can't conceive of anyone seriously maintaining otherwise.

Impeachment

I favor impeachment of V.P. Cheney and President Bush, immediately. Obviously, it must be both, as the supposed model of a "unitary" executive, ironically, is actually a dual presidency unprecedented in U.S. History.

I cite Reagan administration Asst. A.G. Bruce Fein's explanation, now given in numerous sources for those interested, as the most cogent statement of the case I've seen. See this, for perhaps the best source (in discussion with The Nation editor John Nichols).

I note that Josh Marshall, of TPM, has now drifted close to endorsing the idea. I want to point out that one of Marshall's arguments contra, i.e., that there are just not going to be 17 Republican senators* to convict no matter what, is completely unpersuasive to me. (*18 really, because Old Joe will never join the Dems).

I agree with Bruce Fein that impeachment is a necessary function envisioned by the founders to be used in precisely the kinds of 'abuse of power' scenarios as we are currently living through. The reason the unlikelihood of conviction should not deter Democrats is that it is largely the very challenge of impeachment, never mind conviction and actual removal from office, that will have a nullifying effect on the extremely dangerous precedent being set. Marhsall says it clearly enough himself:

"I think we are now moving into a situation where the White House , on various fronts, is openly ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.

"If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into
precedent."

This, of course, is also why just waiting out the end of the Bush term is not sufficient. Even if a Democrat replaces this administration, the precedent of this devastating and breathtaking abuse of power will have a serious, possibly irreparable, damaging effect on the 'living constitution.' With many Federal courts, and now the Supreme Court, dominated by 'unitary executive' extremist ideologues, the effect will be amplified and our country could be changed for the worse forever. I also disagree with the often-expressed view that the Democrats will alienate newly won independent and moderate Republican voters by focusing on impeachment rather than "the business of government."

First, Democratic leaders must lead. They must demand that the media give them the opportunity to say why they are doing it, purchasing time on television with campaign funds if necessary. The must make the case to the people. Second, I believe that even many so-called moderates now have a profound sense of unease at the rampant abuses of power in this administration. This unease can be influenced by leadership and advocacy to become support for impeachment, and for a "new way forward" in our country (never mind Iraq). Third, and perhaps most tritely, what business of government? Virtually nothing is being done, with the obstructionism of the Republicans in the Senate, other than maintaining the status quo. (For example, the antiquated and damaging policies bundled in the Farm Bill up for renewal currently).

Many so-called conservatives, of course, like this just fine, as the status quo, an unprincipled set of policies favoring wealthy special interests that keep them in office, is exactly what they want to maintain.

It seems to me that impeachment, although surely risky, would galvanize the issues and very possibly shake loose some of the Republican support for the president, when it becomes clear, as I believe it would, that a largish majority of Americans is thoroughly fed up with this administration, and worried about its long term consequences for our nation. Of course, there is risk. But there is also opportunity. Accepting the status quo, in my view, and "waiting it out," will virtually guarantee that the damage already done will continue to reverberate with negative consequences for a long, long time.

Congress should enforce subpenas against Bolten and Miers now

Please see this piece in today's Post by Rutgers Law School constitutional scholar Fred Askin, on why the Congressional committees seeking to enforce subpenas against Bolten and Miers should forget about seeking the assistance of the Justice Department, since the administration has already made known it will follow the erroneous reasoning of the Reagan area attorney general opinion that says they don't have to comply with that request. This article explains not only why that isn't the only option, but exactly how the Congress can proceed to enforce its subpenas itself, through direct use of contempt citations, and imprisonment of the defiant witnesses until they cooperate.

OK, Congressional Democrats, quit yapping and take action to enforce the proper powers of the Congress, now.

Hey, Whaa? NEW war authorization?!

This is from the NYT today, an article about Lugar and Warner seeking a "new war authorization:"

The Senate was already scheduled to consider a variety of proposals next week, including one by Senators Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, seeking to de-authorize the original war authorization. That proposal, though, is not favored by the Democratic leadership because several senators who voted against the 2002 authorization are reluctant to endorse a new one.

EXCUSE ME? Hey, Dems! What part of the overwhelming message of the 2006 election, that the American people want this war to END, as soon as is feasible, DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND???

Get this: we expect you to take action, whatever it takes, however it may be possible, and keep at it until you succeed, in fulfilling this mandate. No new war authorization has any role to play in accomplishing this. And if you are even considering authorizing any further military adventurism by this proven-unreliable bunch in the White House, you not only aren't doing your jobs, you should have your heads examined. Byrd and Clinton have it right, de-authorize. But then, no new authorization. Make this war unquestionably illegal, then we'll see what the Decider thinks he has the power to do.

Fred Thompson, Dangerous Extremist and Hypocrite

Just in case, please see this, in the unlikely event that anyone didn't already realize that Fred Thompson holds dangerously extreme right-wing views, has a long history as a corporate and foreign-government Washington lobbyist (perhaps a tad inconsistent with his "folksy" red-pickup truck image), and is a complete hypocrite as a Vietnam era draft evader now trumpeting "military toughness;" and as a serial divorcé with a trophy wife 25 years younger than he trumpeting "traditional family values."

It is only through the massive ignorance of the public* and deliberate media eye-aversion that people like this can get away with running for office in this country, when their chief qualification is that they play an obnoxious autocrat on TV. I'd say the central thesis of Al Gore's new book The Assault on Reason is pretty obviously bang-on right.

Link: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/31/thompson/index.html
...................................................
*Unrelated, but if you have doubt that Mencken was right about the ignorance of the masses, consider this. According to a survey cited on the CBC radio show Testing Science (a lecture by Harvard historian of science Steven Shapin), nearly 1 in 4, 24%, of the U.S. public recently surveyed did not know that the earth goes around the Sun.

More congressional oversight needed

This is my comment on Glenn Greenwald's post today.

Marty Lederman on Comey: How Bad it must have been

Marty Lederman: How bad it must have been <Link>.

Greenwald says WaPo editorial shows Warrantless Surveillance Finally Coming to fore

Glenn Greenwald today (May 17) again focuses on the Comey testimony and the Warrantless Surveillance scandal, saying that the May 17 WaPo editorial is an indication that the importance of this issue is finally coming to the fore.

[ http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/17/nsa_follow_up/index.html ]

Please e-mail me to become a farflung correspondent

If you would like to receive comments, often not posted here, by e-mail, please use the "E-mail me" link at left to be added to my Farflung Correspondents list.

Warrantless Surveillance -- Constitutional Crisis

Farflung correspondents,



It does not yet seem to be the consensus in this country that the undeniable willingness and history of this administration to act outside, indeed in clear violation, of the law, and to stonewall and keep in secrecy such actions, is a constitutional crisis. I believe it is. The warrantless surveillance of American citizens in the US, in blatant and unambiguous felony violation of FISA, which is still going on, is probably the chief, but by no means the only, example. Differing views of the proper powers of the presidency go all the way back to the Federalist papers, and the trend, certainly since WWII, with some reining back after Watergate, has been more and more towards a view of the executive as a sort of elected King, especially in the foreign policy and war powers arenas. But this administration, has gone far, far beyond any previous view of the powers of the presidency, and has all but declared, in various signing statements, public prevarications, and simply by refusing to answer inquiries even of the Congress, that it can do whatever it wants, without reference to the laws Congress makes, whenever it, in its own unreivewed and unchecked judgment, decides that somehow or other "national security" is involved.



This is a horrible, horrible precedent, and I truly believe that if the Democratic Congress fails in its oversight responsibilities on these issues between now and the end of this president's term, this precedent will have the effect of grossly weakening the separation of powers which are the very essence of our system of government, for a long time to come if not permanently.



Please read Gleen Greenwald's piece (5/16/07), on the importance of the Comey testimony to Congress yesterday and the very sorry state of affairs with respect to oversight and action on the clearly illegal actions of this administration with respect to warrantless domestic surveillance.



I hope it's not necessary to reiterate, but I will anyway: The question is not whether particular surveillance was necessary, or whether the administration's aggressiveness in spying on potential terrorists was admirable. The fact is we have a system in place to allow this kind of surveillance, with legal oversight and within the law. With the amendment to FISA in 2001, the government can conduct surveillance without court order for 72 hours, and can easily obtain a warrant to continue it within hours. The FISA court has never refused a warrant for domestic wiretaps, and is available to rule on short notice. The fact is inescapable: the check on executive power of even this all but pro forma oversight is seen by the Unitary Presidency true believers in this administration as an unacceptable limit on the President's kinglike powers, so they insist on the right to conduct these actions, in secret, without recourse, without anyone's right to know, and in completely clear and blatant violation of law. The suspicion is very, very hard to escape, that they wanted and seized these powers because they acutally conduct all kinds of surveillance for other reasons, on a massive scale, and don't want anyone, not even a Federal judge whose job it is, primarily, to rubber stamp approvals for surveillance, to know what's going on.

Democratic Congress Should Stand Up to Bush

Speculation on last night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann centered on the reason for Carl Levin's signaling that the Democrats in Congress will cave on Iraq funding: that the Democrats don't want to "own" the Iraq issue, they prefer to give Bush what he wants and let him have full responsibility for the consequences of the continued occupation.

I think this is cowardly, even if it is good politics (which I concede it may be). Too many lives are at stake. Bush's arrogant stance, effectively saying that Congress' only responsibility is to agree with him and pony up the money, just can't be countenanced. (Perino as much as said exactly this yesterday). Bush wants Democrats in Congress to come to the White House so he can lecture them and harangue them into capitulating. They should say, no, thank you, Mr. President. We will meet with you to negotiate a resolution of this issue, not to be dictated to. If you cannot move towards accommodating the clear will of the American people, we have nothing to talk about. The funds are appropriated, with the conditions imposed which reflect the desires of the majority of Americans. Deal with it.

The leadership should send the president an open letter, and use some of their leftover campaign funds to publish it in newspapers around the country. It should say clearly that the American people want this occupation to end, that continued funding of the occupation forces will not be forthcoming without provisions for ending the occupation, and if the president chooses to veto the funding measure, the consequences are on his head. It should call on the American people to make clear to this rogue administration, with calls, letters, and e-mails, that this is in fact the will of the people, which the president must accede to.

UPDATE: This is what Sen. Reid actually said:

"The American people want the President and the Congress to work together to bring this war to an end, safely and responsibly. Congressional Democrats are willing to meet with the President at any time, but we believe that any discussion of an issue as critical as Iraq must be accomplished by conducting serious negotiations without any preconditions. Our goal should be to produce an Iraq supplemental bill that both fully funds our troops and gives them a strategy for success.

"With his threat to veto such a plan for change in Iraq, President Bush is ignoring the clear message of the American people: we must protect our troops, hold the Iraqi government accountable, rebuild our military, provide for our veterans, and bring our troops home.

"The President is demanding that we renew his blank check for a war without end. Despite the fact that the President persists in trying to score political points at the expense of our troops, congressional Democrats have repeatedly reached out in the spirit of cooperation. We renew our request to work with him to produce a bipartisan bill that provides our troops and our veterans with every penny they need, but in turn, demands accountability."

This isn't quite strong enough, to my mind, but it's a start. As I've said before, though, it's time to explicitly revoke the 2003 Iraq War resolution, and make it clear that the president's policy of indefinite occupation of Iraq will become illegal after a certain date, to be specified.

John Edwards' Statement on Bush plan to veto funding for military

From Edwards's website.
John Edwards Calls On President Bush To Take Responsibility For The Consequences Of His Veto Threat On Iraq

"If President Bush vetoes funding for the troops, he will be the one who is blocking funding for the troops. Nobody else.

"Now is not a time to back down; it is a time for strength and conviction. The President's veto threat should only strengthen our resolve to stand by our troops and end this conflict.

"The Congress should make absolutely clear that they are going to stand their ground, supporting the troops and reflecting the will of the American people to end this war. If the President vetoes a funding bill, Congress should send him another bill that funds the troops, brings them home, and ends the war. And if he vetoes that one, they should send him another that does the same thing."

An Open Letter to the President

Dear Mr. President:

I am very, very disappointed in the stance you have taken on the Iraq funding Supplement, as indicated by your press conference this morning. I am particularly disappointed by your bellicose name-calling and refusal to even acknowledge the will of the majority. You blame the representatives of the people for voting the way the last election clearly indicated the people want their Congress to vote: to begin to bring to an end the occupation which has emerged from the war in Iraq, which you started on false pretenses. The people have spoken, and they demand that your protracted war, with no end in sight, to fight the wrong enemy at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, must come to an end.

You claim, against all evidence, that the people are with you. But you are wrong. By a significant majority, the American people want this useless, baseless war ended. It seems that only you, and others so isolated in their blind support of you that they cannot see the evidence before their eyes, continue to believe a majority still supports this war.

More disturbingly, you seem to fail to grasp the essential principles of American government. Foreign policy, especially military policy, is ultimately decided by Congress in our system. The power to declare war is explicitly reserved in the Constitution to the Congress. The practice since World War II of ceding this power to the presidency with “resolutions,” or sometimes simply acquiescing in the illegal usurpation of this power by presidents, without any authorization, has proven unwise and dangerous. The Iraq occupation proves this yet again.

Regardless of the appropriateness of war-by-resolution, it should be clear that when the Congress unambiguously votes to bring a military operation to an end, as it has here, the permission given to the president in some past resolution is revoked, and his failure to comply with the express wishes of Congress is unlawful usurpation of powers he does not have. I only wish this Congress had made even clearer that the 2003 resolution, passed as it was on the basis of misinformation and deceit, is now revoked. But how you can conclude that the Congress continues to authorize the indefinite continuation of this occupation is beyond me. Apparently, you do not consider yourself answerable to the electorate, or the Congress, at all.

If funds are ultimately denied for the continued military occupation of Iraq, it will be because, and only because, you have refused to accept the clear will of the people and their representatives, in appropriating funds conditioned on the commencement of the process of disengaging from this war of occupation.

You are not the Emperor of America, sir. You are the servant of the people, whose will you are now openly and dangerously defying. This is shameful, illegal, and very, very dangerous.

I hope you will reconsider your reckless disregard for the principle that government of the United States is by consent of the governed. I hope you will sign the appropriations supplement bill when it comes to your desk, and begin, as is your real job, executing the instructions of the people’s representatives, which are clear: you are to end the occupation of Iraq and bring the troops home.

David Studhalter

Update: Glenn Greenwald's related comments on Giuliani's scary views on presidential power.

McCain votes with Wingers to Eliminate Federal Minimum Wage

In my ongoing campaign to get Americans to wake up and realize that Saint John McCain is a right winger, not a moderate, please note that he was one of 28 Wingnut Senators to vote to eliminate the Federal Minimum Wage entirely.

The Escalation, a set-up

Take a look at this. [Sullivan]

President Bush has less respect for the constitution than any president in living memory: of that, I'm sure. He is probably also overall the least honest. (Nixon lied about everything, but I think this one takes the cake).

My e-mail to John McCain

I sent this to John McCain's Contact point on his website:

Dear sir:
With all due respect, it is one thing to say, 'I recognize
what polls show the public predominantly wants in Iraq, but I believe what I've proposed is what's right, and it's the policy I intend to fight for.'

That I could respect. Disagree with, but respect.

But to claim, as you have done, that the re-election of Mr. Lieberman "proves" that the American people do not favor expeditious extrication of American forces from Iraq is either dishonest or simply ignores reality. Numerous recent polls have shown that a significant majority of Americans want just that, and exit polls in Connecticut showed that only 15 percent... FIFTEEN... favored sending more troops to Iraq. A recent Salt Lake City Observer poll showed that even a majority of Utahns favor orderly withdrawal.

Stand up for what you believe, if you think it's the right thing to do, but don't pretend it's not a minority view. To do so is either dishonest or foolhardy.

Working Harder for the Man / Bob Herbert NYT

Robert L. Nardelli, the chairman and chief executive of Home Depot, began the new year with a pink slip and a golden parachute. The company handed him a breathtaking $210 million to take a hike. What would he have been worth if he’d done a good job?

Data recently compiled by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston offers a startling look at just how out of whack executive compensation has become. Some of the Wall Street Christmas bonuses last month were fabulous enough to resurrect an adult’s belief in Santa Claus. Morgan Stanley’s John Mack got stock and options worth in excess of $40 million. Lloyd Blankfein at Goldman Sachs did even better — $53.4 million.

According to the center’s director, Andrew Sum, the top five Wall Street firms (Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley) were expected to award an estimated $36 billion to $44 billion worth of bonuses to their 173,000 employees, an average of between $208,000 and $254,000, “with the bulk of the gains accruing to the top 1,000 or so highest-paid managers.”

Now consider what’s been happening to the bulk of the American population, the ordinary men and women who have to work for a living somewhere below the stratosphere of the top corporate executives. Between 2000 and 2006, labor productivity in the nonfarm sector of the economy rose by an impressive 18 percent. But workers were not paid for that impressive effort. During that period, according to Mr. Sum, the inflation-adjusted weekly wages of workers increased by just 1 percent.

That’s $3.20 a week. As Mr. Sum wryly observed, that won’t even buy you a six-pack of Bud Light. Joe Six-Pack has been downsized. Three bucks ain’t what it used to be.

There are 93 million production and nonsupervisory workers (exclusive of farmworkers) in the U.S. Their combined real annual earnings from 2000 to 2006 rose by $15.4 billion, which is less than half of the combined bonuses awarded by the five Wall Street firms for just one year.

“Just these bonuses — for one year — overwhelmingly exceed all the pay increases received by these workers over the entire six-year period,” said Mr. Sum.

In a development described by Mr. Sum as “quite stark and rather bleak for the economic well-being of the average worker,” the once strong link between productivity gains and real wage increases has been severed. The mystery to me is why workers aren’t more scandalized. If your productivity increases by 18 percent and your pay goes up by 1 percent, you’ve been dealt a hand full of jokers in a game in which jokers aren’t wild.

Workers have received some modest increases in benefits over the past six years, but most of the money from their productivity gains — by far, it’s not even a close call — has gone into profits and the salaries of top executives.

Fairness plays no role in this system. The corporate elite control it, and they have turned it to their ends.

Mr. Sum, a longtime expert on the economic life of the American worker, said he is astonished at the degree to which ordinary workers have been shortchanged over the past several years. “Productivity has been exceptional,” he said. “And for most of my life, the way to get wages up was to be more productive. That’s how our economy was supposed to work.”

The productivity gains in the go-go decades that followed World War II were broadly shared, and the result was a dramatic, sustained increase in the quality of life for most Americans. Nowadays workers have to be more productive just to maintain their economic status quo.

Productivity gains are no longer broadly shared. They’re barely shared at all.

The pervasive unfairness in the way the great wealth of the United States is distributed should be seen for what it is, an insidious disease eating away at the structure of the society and undermining its future. The middle class is hurting, propped up by the wobbly crutches of personal debt. The safety net, not just for the poor, but for the middle class as well, is disappearing. The savings rate has dropped to below zero, and more Americans are filing for bankruptcy than for divorce.

Your pension? Don’t ask.

There’s a reason why the power elite get bent out of shape at the merest mention of a class conflict in the U.S. The fear is that the cringing majority that has taken it on the chin for so long will wise up and begin to fight back.

McCain and Biden Comments

I got these from http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com.

I simply fail to understand why so many otherwise reasonably progressive people give John McCain a pass. Here's what he said at the American Enterprise Insitute, a hard-right "think tank," yesterday:

Contrary to popular notions that U.S. troops are getting "caught in the cross-fire" between Sunni and Shia fighters, and are therefore ineffective in ceasing the smoldering civil war, the track record is that when U.S. troops stopping sectarian violence is excellent, where American soldiers have been deployed to areas in turmoil, including Baghdad neighborhoods, the violence has ceased almost immediately.

Similary, the marines in Anbar province report very positive effects in reducing the non-sectarian al qaeda based violence that is the predominant cause of instability there.

This is contrary to virtually all reported intelligence and news reports for the past three years. Either this man is so deluded in his hawkish mindset, or he's just as much of a fibber as Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Doesn't much matter which: he's obviously rushing headlong in the opposite direction from the clear desires of the large majority of Americans: to extricate us from this enormous, unproductive mess as soon as possible.

Contrast this with Joe Biden's remark in a WaPo interview, also from yesterday:

I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost. They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy -- literally, not figuratively."

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR2007010401525.html.

Buddhism and Science: Bodhicitta

From Choosing Reality by B. Alan Wallace:

In all of human experience two types of aspiration bear an integrity and nobility beyond all others: the yearning for understanding and spiritual awakening, and the longing to be of service to others, to dispel suffering and bring joy. Modern science, as developed and expressed by the greatest of its exponents, is motivated by both these aspirations. Intellectually and practically it stands, at its best, as a model of freedom and inquiry and ingenuity; and if put into active balance with religion and philosophy, it may well serve us long into the future.
[...]
It is possible to integrate one's yearing for truth with one's wish to help others so taht tehy become one's
abiding motivation in solitary and active life. This is achieved through a cultivation of a 'spirit of awakening' [bodhicitta]: the aspiration to attain full awakening in order to be of most effective service to others. This longing may lead one into the deepest states of contemplation as well as the most active ways of service. It implicitly acknowledges the interdependence of self and others and the kinship of all that lives, and is the sole motivation with which one can attain the full spiritual awakening of a Buddha. Just as it is the supreme motivation for spiritual practice, so is it the finest incentive for scientific research. As physics and Buddhism encounter one another in the modern world, it may in this spirit of awakening that they find their deepest affinity and sense of integration.

Policy of Cruelty

The following is a quote from former Naval General Counsel Alberto Mora, featured in an article in the current New Yorker by Jane Mayer.

In my strongly held view, anyone who doesn’t wholeheartedly endorse this statement, and do everything in his or her power to see to it that every action taken by or under the authority of the government abides by its spirit, has no business serving in our government in any capacity.

“If cruelty is no longer declared unlawful, but instead is applied as a matter of policy, it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. It destroys the whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human beings, not just in America—even those designated as ‘unlawful enemy combatants.’ If you make this exception the whole Constitution crumbles. It’s a transformative issue.”

Pakistani Cleric solicits murder

ABC news reports that a Pakistani Muslim cleric has offered $1 million for the murder of one of the Danish cartoonists who drew cartoons of Muhammad. Every Western nation should demand of President Musharraf that this blatant solicitation of murder be immediately investigated and prosecuted, failing which diplomats should be withdrawn. This is just not acceptable conduct in countries claiming the privileges of membership in the International community.

We cannot tolerate a government that deliberately breaks the law

I keep hearing on the media various citations of public opinion that the unwarranted wiretaps carried out by the Bush administration are necessary, might prevent a terrorist attack, we're at war, so it's OK, etc. But these all miss the essential point, as far as I'm concerned. The issue is not whether the wiretaps are a good idea. Maybe they are, I don't pretend to know for sure. The issue is whether this administration is constrained to abide by the rule of law. It claims it isn't... or rather that a grossly vague authorization to "use force" allows it to ignore the 4th amendment and particular statutory provisions wholesale.

There are two, in my opinion, inescapable realities here:

1. Any reasonable interpretation of FISA, which is the law of the land, prohibits this conduct. In conjunction with the 4th amendment, the conduct is unquestionably illegal. The rationalization offered by the administration is simply not a credible interpreation of the intent of the Congress to delegate powers to the presidency.

2. The administration opposed a bill in Congress in 2002, while it was carrying out this illegal acitvity, which would have made reforms to FISA to make the kind of wiretaps they want to conduct easier to authorize.

I don't see how any reasonable person can fail to draw the conclusion: the government deliberately concealed from the public and most of the Congress the fact that it was intentionally violating the law.

Impeachment is called for (even though it is probably not politically feasible, unless the House reverts to the Democrats this year). Not because the wiretaps weren't necessary... that's a separate issue. Because if we are to be a nation of laws not of men, we must not tolerate our government intentionally violating the law in so widespread, long-term, and flagrant a manner as this, or else we place the future of representative government in doubt.

Emptiness and the Sublime ~ A Holiday Reflection

One of the wisest and most profound scholars and practitioners of the Buddhist tradition of Madhyamaka, the second-century master Nagarjuna, taught that the real meaning of the somewhat cryptic wisdom teachings on emptiness of our Founder, Shakyamuni, as, for example, in the Heart Sutra, mean that all form, all matter; even consciousness itself; are without inherent existence and have as their essential nature emptiness. There are elaborate and very involved logical and experiential bases for this doctrine, but I won't belabor the point. The conclusion from all of this (often omitted in glosses on Buddhism), however, is that far from there being simply nothing, i.e., no-existence (nihilism), the mere appearances to mind which those of us living in the World experience as suffering, transitory enjoyment, form, consciousness. . . the universe itself . . . are by their essential nature beyond conceptual thought; a genuine reality which is open, expansive, relaxed, and blissful.

Perhaps this points to the common ground between Western theological religion and Buddhist practice: The Western One-God and our Vajradhara are both representations of that which is so beyond human ordinary mental conception that all description, all words, all concepts fail us, and we can only revere it and seek to involve ourselves in its direct experience. And in so doing we discover that the sublime creates in our hearts potentially limitless lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, equanimity, purification, and wisdom.

May everyone's holidays be happy, and may they have a happy, productive, and healthy New Year!

More on Why Bush should be impeached and removed from office

Josh Marshall has an excellent analysis of why the right-wing apologists for this president's failure to uphold the constitution have it all wrong. Even if the argument that the president has extraordinary emergency powers has some merit, it is clearly and in my view inarguably incumbent upon the president to inform Congress of any such actions, as soon as practicable, and follow their legislative dictates on any further use of a particular power or application of a particular policy. Any other conduct is misdemeanor in office, and the president should be impeached. Including for failure to so consult with Congress. This president has been explicitly and quite blatantly violating the clear provisions of statutory law for years, without seeking Congressional approval. This is unacceptable, and the President should be impeached, convicted, and removed from office with all speed.

The President has deliberately violated his oath to uphold the constitution and must be impeached

The New York Times reports this morning on Bush's explanation for why he violated the explicit terms of the law on surveillance of American citizens and the requirement for judicial review. His explanation is entirely unsatisfactory. There is no credible legal defense: when Congress speaks on a particular subject, and explicitly requires judicial review for a particular executive action, the president may not reply on vague "use of force" authorization or reliance on undefined additional executive powers to openly and deliberately violate the law. The conclusion is inescapable: this President has intentionally violated his oath to uphold the constitution. Impeachment forthwith is the only reasonable course of action, and those who fail to see this are facing the slippery slope of the end of American representative government (in the relatively near future), and facing it with frightening indifference.

Global Warming: Rushing towards Catastrophe

The NYT has an editorial today about the shameful fiasco in Montreal, saying that the best that can be said about it is that the other countries struggling to work out a framework for dealing with the crisis of global warming refused to allow the US to blow the entire conference to smithereens.

Elizabeth Kolbert has a lead "Talk of the Town" piece in the current New Yorker too, in which she says it's no longer a question of putting off catastrophe; it's a question of rushing towards it. (No link currently available).

Intolerable Shame, If True

I have no way of verifying the following, from Steve Clemons's The Washington Note, but I can say that Clemons is a generally reliable and sober person, who reports this as fact, so it carries a certain credibility to me. If this is true, it is so abominably shameful that a major shakeup at the CIA and the Administration is called for. This kind of unAmerican activity simply must stop. We Americans must not continue to tolerate this sort of thing being committed in our names.

Make it $100 million for Innocent Rendition Victim Khaled El-Masri
I just got off the phone with a prominent Arabic journalist producing a program on the politics and practice of rendition.This journalist, Yosri Fouda, has interviewed at length Khaled El-Masri, the innocent victim of American kidnapping and rendition gone very wrong. I have not read extensively about El-Masri's case, so this may be public record, but what I did not know when I wrote last night's post were the details of how he was "dumped" after American authorities learned he was innocent.

Get this now. El-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, was kidnapped while vacationing by American intelligence agents. He was transported and "questioned" -- allegedly roughly -- by American authorities in Afghanistan. Along the way, these investigators finally figured out he was innocent and reported back to CIA Director George Tenet. Tenet had him held ANYWAY for another two months. And then. . .you might ask, could it get worse? Well, yes.
We dumped him blind-folded in the deep forest, mountainous triangle area between Albania, Serbia and Macedonia. He had to walk out with no money, no identification. He got to a border guard station -- and because of his inability to identify himself and because of how "outlandish" his story sounded to the border guards he met, he feared that the entire process would begin. We dumped him blindfolded in a forest in one of the toughest regions nearby. Were U.S. authorities hoping he'd just be shot by someone else? What were they thinking?Let's make sure that one of the journalists traveling with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice asks about this detail of the story that had escaped me and others before. What is this about dumping a known-innocent guy in the Serbia-Kosovo-Macedonia triangle? More later.-- Steve Clemons

UPDATE: My friend, journalist Eli Lake, has suggested in the comments section that someone (including TWN) pose the question of how the El-Masri case occurred to the CIA, which handled this case. He has a good point, and we will follow up on it. But others in the press corps ought to also follow up with the CIA. SCC

The Great Misleader

Krugman in today's Times (unfortunately behind Times Select Firewall) argues cogently that Bush's "major policy address" on Iraq was more of the same deliberate misleadership we've become accustomed to, and, at least up until now, the press has largely acquiesced in.

Among his chief examples are the completely misleading figures given on oil production. Of course oil production in Iraq increased from 2003 to 2004. During and just before the war in '03 there was effectively no oil production, so if it didn't increase in '04 it would really be a major drop. The truth is that oil production in Iraq, depsite rosy predictions by the neocons in Fantasyland, has never achieved in pre-war, Sanctions-in-effect levels.

He also points out that the statements about "progress" in Fallujah, Samara and Najaf are pretty blatantly just not borne out by the real facts.

I was impressed by the CBS News dialog between Bob Schieffer and Lara Logan on the day of Bush's speech. Schieffer asked her about the Airport Road, which Bush claimed was now under Iraqi control. Logan said, "That's just not true, Bob," and proceeded to describe the real situation. This is what the American people have a right to expect: a press that does its homework and fact-checks everything the Great Misleader says.

Lieberman defends Bush Iraq Policy

This is a good example of why I've thought for some time now that Joe Lieberman should resign from the Democratic party -- like Sharon from Likud -- and join the Republicans. Of course, he should resign his Senate seat too, since he was elected as a Democrat. To continue to serve as a Republican is a fraud upon the electorate... and he's already doing it, in everything but name.

Bamford on White House Prewar Deception Strategy

See James Bamford in Rolling Stone on the White House's outsourcing strategy to create the propaganda climate to sell a war to depose Saddam Hussein.

My letter to my congressman about Medicare Rx Coverage

Dear Congressman Berman,
I am still in my 50s, so the Medicare Prescription Drug fiasco does not directly affect me personally, and my elderly father has a health plan that makes the choices simpler for him than for most.
Nonetheless, I feel impelled to write to you to urge you to sponsor and support IMMEDIATE REFORM to this very-ill-conceived plan. Seniors everywhere are very confused, and the "do-nut hole", prohibition against negotiated prices, and needless mandate of "gratuitous privatization," as Economist Paul Krugman puts it, are all hugely negative and badly thought-out features of this plan.

I believe a great political price will be paid by those who fail and refuse to radically overhaul this Republican boondoggle, and replace it with honest, government paid, and fair prescription drug coverage as part of Medicare. Such fairness must include a means-based formula for any premiums and humane considerations taken into account in any restrictons of coverage.

Thank you.

Sullivan on Torture Policy: good questions

Andrew Sullivan has two very good posts on the Bush torture policy, asking some excellent questions.

BUSH DIGS IN DEEPER: Here's a fascinating quote:
"There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again. So you bet we will aggressively pursue them but we will do so under the law. We do not torture," - President Bush, today. If that's the case, why threaten to veto a law that would simply codify what Bush alleges is already the current policy? If "we do not torture," how to account for the hundreds and hundreds of cases of abuse and torture by U.S. troops, documented by the government itself? If "we do not torture," why the memos that expanded exponentially the lee-way given to the military to abuse detainees in order to get intelligence? The president's only defense against being a liar is that he is defining "torture" in such a way that no other reasonable person on the planet, apart from Bush's own torture apologists (and they are now down to one who will say so publicly), would agree. The press must now ask the President: does he regard the repeated, forcible near-drowning of detainees to be torture? Does he believe that tying naked detainees up and leaving them outside all night to die of hypothermia is "torture"? Does he believe that beating the legs of a detainee until they are pulp and he dies is torture? Does he believe that beating detainees till they die is torture? Does he believe that using someone's religious faith against them in interrogations is "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment and thereby illegal? What is his definition of torture?

SOME MORE QUESTIONS: What does the president think of Ian Fishback's testimony that abuse and torture was routine and that no one in the military hierarchy would say they were not permitted during eighteen months of his trying to get an answer? What does the president make of the following quote from another servicemember of his time in Iraq: "I think our policies required abuse. There were freaking horrible things people were doing. I saw [detainees] who had feet smashed with hammers. One detainee told me he had been forced by Marines to sit on an exhaust pipe, and he had a softball-sized blister to prove it. The stuff I did was mainly torture lite: sleep deprivation, isolation, stress positions, hypothermia. We used dogs." Since the president signed the finding of September 17, setting up a series of secret CIA detention camps where 'waterboarding' is permitted, does he believe and will he state categorically that no torture has ever occurred at those camps?
Watching and listening to this man, it seems to me we have a few possible interpretations in front of us. Either the president simply does not know what is being done in his name in his own military or he is lying through his teeth to the American people and the world. I guess there is also a third possibility: that he is simply unable to acknowledge the enormity of what he has done to the honor of the United States, the success of the war and the safety of American servicemembers. And so he has gone into clinical denial. Or he is so ashamed he cannot bear to face the truth of what he has done. None of these options are, shall we say, encouraging. But there is, of course, an easy way forward for the president if this is truly what he believes: support the Congress in backing the president's own position. Pass the McCain Amendment. Given what he said today, why on earth would he not?

My response to Mr. Sullivan:

Excellent, excellent questions. The Gagglers should ask every one of them, every day, until they're answered. And the nightly news broadcasts should show Scotty trying to dodge the questions. "We don't torture," "We act within the law," are not answers to these very, very specific questions; not to mention the fact that the premise of the questions shows these kinds of answers to be lies.

What I would like to know is how can those responsible for congressional oversight justify not holding hearings to ask these questions of whoever they can from the administration, again, every day, until they are answered? The shame of such a process would force change of policy amounting to complete reversal.

You are absolutely right that this issue goes beyond ideology, and it goes beyond whether the prosecution of war in Iraq is worthwhile or not. America's reputation for "fair play" is already shot, but its very legitimacy as a "defender of freedom" is on the line, and about to go down in a way that will be very, very long and hard to recover.

Lies and Conspiracy

Of course political reality is one thing. The government is completely controlled by the Republican Party. Nonetheless, we have to ask:

It's now clear that Bush and his administration waged a campaign of deliberate deception, in which the "mainstream media" was complicit, to justify involving America in a catastrophic war.

• How is this not an impeachable offense?

It's equally clear that Cheney, Libby and Rove (and probably others) conspired to out to the press a covert CIA operative, during wartime, with serious consequences to American intelligence assets and effectively ending her career.

• How is this not treason?

At the very least, there should be an unceasing drumbeat in the op-Eds and commentaries across the land, demanding that Bush explain and account for his actions, and for Cheney and Rove to resign now.

Karma and Damnation

Whether or not the modern Westerner wishes to believe in the real existence of infernal realms is in a sense beside the point. Evil simply brings forth suffering; and it hardly matters whether one conceives of this in the picturesque terms of Dante’s Inferno or shares the view of Jean-Paul Sartre that “hell is other people.” Nevertheless, it is important to grasp that the idea of eternal damnation as a punishment for sin is foreign to Buddhist understanding. Suffering is a consequence of one’s own action, not a retribution inflicted by an external power. Infernal torments, moreover, though they may last for aeons, belong to samsara and are therefore not exempt from the law of impermanence. And even if the notion of a divine vengeance is regarded as an approximation, in mythological terms, to the concept of karmic consequences, it is perhaps worth suggesting that the impersonal view proposed by Buddhism should have the advantage of exorcising the paralyzing sense of guilt, or revolt, that can so often be the outcome of a too anthropomorphic theism. The doctrine of karma has only one message: the experience of states of being follows upon the perpetration of acts. We are the authors of our own destiny; and being the authors, we are ultimately, perhaps frighteningly, free.

--from the Padmakara Translation Group’s Introduction to Shantideva’s Bodhicharyavatara (Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life) (Shambhala Publications, 1996).

End Gerrymandering: a Modest Proposal

The whole issue of Congressional redistricting has become central to any analysis of why representative government in the United States is so dysfunctional. In Texas, Republicans were able to strongarm an overturning of the traditional ten-year cycle to force through a grossly disproportional mid-decade reapportionment, resulting, by some accounts, in a pick-up of five seats by Republicans. This is not because of any change in the votes of the electorate; merely in the system which determines what those votes will determine. In California, the governor has proposed an initiative to change the constitution of the State to create a commission of un-elected retired judges to make the determination of congressional redistricting . . . with no guarantee that the new system will lead to districts which any more accurately represent the actual views of the people than the current system.

My proposal is relatively simple, and to my knowledge has not been widely discussed anywhere before. I am not a statistician or mathematician, but let’s take it as a given that there are a limited number of mathematical solutions to the following problem: with minimal adjustments to prevent districts from bisecting buildings, etc., require the drawing congressional districts in a given state so that each has the same number of registered voters, and the minimum possible perimeter. (Which translates to the most compact area). This should amount to essentially a mathematical problem, or algorithm, to be calculated by a computer from the census data and geographical data points.

If this idea were put into effect, “gerrymandering,” which is the drawing of weirdly contorted borders for congressional districts in order to guarantee the re-election of incumbents, would be effectively outlawed, and there would be no negotiation over or arbitrary designation of districts. In the random fallout of advantage and disadvantage from such a system, no party would be prejudiced and none unduly advantaged. Such redistricting could occur with each census, or, based on politics-proof government updated estimates, more often.

Plamegate heating up

Plamegate timeline, for anyone interested, here.

This thing is really heating up. See this and this.

It causes one to wonder if total meltdown is avoidable. It appears that Rove at least may be doomed.

See this for one take on "Why this matters."

Ain't no use arguin' about religion

My nephew, an evangelical Christian, suggested I read C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, I suppose to encourage me, whom he knows to subscribe to Buddhist teachings, to at least have a better idea where his faith comes from. I’d actually read the book, or part of it, years ago, but I dutifully went out and found an old copy and read it. I can’t say I found it particularly profound. Professor Lewis, in the first part of the book, The Case for Christianity, tries to prove the truth of his religion in six sentences or so, but this seemed like a series of non-sequiturs to me. The conclusion was foregone. The rest of the book presumes at least a degree of acceptance of the basic premises, i.e. that the World was created by God, that he sent his Son, begotten not made, to Earth to save us, etc. He seems to be trying to make a logical case for belief in his religion, but I think his task is impossible, so it’s not surprising that he doesn’t succeed. It isn’t that Christianity is any more difficult to prove logically, it’s just that religion, by practical definition, must transcend rational issues like real-world proof of its premises. Acceptance must be based on something other than… (more than, if you prefer) ... reason.

I suggested to my nephew nothing in return, not because there aren't useful commentaries on what I believe, but because I have no desire to try to convince him or any Christian of anything, or to question, or try to induce them to question, their beliefs. I’m perfectly content for to have different religious views from my friends and relatives, and only hope that they can be marked by mutual respect. Of course, no one follows, to any considerable extent, a religious tradition, without being convinced that it comes closer to Truth with a capital T than other traditions. That doesn’t mean, though, that he can’t respect those who have come to different conclusions, even if he believes they would be better off if they believed as he does, which of course is equally inevitable.

I think it is inherent in any religion, to at least some degree, that intuition, (or faith, if you prefer), is involved. Thus, the holding of belief or practice is in some degree dependent upon logically or factually indefensible acceptance of specific statements of belief taught or related by past spiritual teachers on whom one chooses to rely. Religious doctrine, again all but by definition, will necessarily contain that which is not falsifiable (or verifiable), and which is necessarily open to the charge, by those who choose not to believe in it, of being arbitrary. Were it otherwise, the doctrine under examination would be provably true, and would cross over from being religion to being science, and denial of such doctrine would go from being an intellectually defensible difference of choice to being mere stupidity. Yet most (not all) people find that if all they are willing to accept, or practice, must be derived from that which can be verified, i.e., that which is science, there is something missing, something important to their well-being. Thus, they make a conscious (or sometimes unconscious) choice to rely on intuition, or faith, and accept as true certain spiritual elements which they find irresistible, regardless of proof. In simpler terms, they choose to believe something not because it’s provably true, but because it seems to them that it just must be true; i.e. they feel it to be true. As an aside, the fact that many of these spiritual elements are in fact common to most spiritual traditions is at least suggestive of their universal truth.

Still, this lack of possibility of proof of spiritual belief is the uncrackable nut: just as the old saw says de gustibus non est disputandum, it is equally true that you can’t usefully argue logically about faith, or intuitive belief. These are ultimately personal matters, apart from the ethical and moral standards which we accept as societal conventions in the interests of public order, insisting not on belief in their truth but in obedience to their form, under compulsion, as the price of living in society. This is the borderland not between religion and science but between religion and law, which of course gives rise to a whole series of other disagreements, based on how people view ethics, but these cross the frontiers of religious categories as well.

Sometimes someone (usually a young person) is seeking something, and is open to suggestion about matters of intuition or faith. And sometimes people’s beliefs gradually evolve, or even spontaneously and suddenly change, in a process common enough that there’s a word for it: epiphany. But usually there are no logical arguments, and no amount of cajoling, short of brainwashing techniques, which will convince someone to change his mind about these essentially non-rational beliefs, on which all religions ultimately rely to at least some extent.