I Joined

You should too:

SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA

Education Education Education

Those pesky voters

While sitting back and watching the significant and approriate backlash against Obama, I'm struck by the fact that Obama probably knew quite well that this would happen but chose the path he did anyway. He's not stupid. He weighed out the costs vs the benefits and decided that screwing the netroots would be less costly than creating a vulnerabilty among low-attention TeeVee viewers.

He may or may not be correct in his assessment, but we'd be derelict in our own efforts if we don't come away with a serious lesson about the limits of our influence.

I think the ActBlue effort is important not only because I'm sure there will be a measurable dip in Obama's fundraising efforts but because our actual mission should be to reach the people who don't necessarily follow the issues closely and teach them why it matters.

It remains an important mission.

Chris Dodd speaks

Glenn Comments

I opine:

He tied the core corruption of the FISA bill's telecom amnesty and warranltess eavesdropping provisions into the whole litany of the Bush administration's lawless and destructive behavior over the last seven years -- from torture and rendition to the abuse of secrecy instruments and Guantanamo mock trials -- with a focus on the way in which telecom amnesty further demolishes the rule of law among our political class.

To me this has always been the core issue. It is well known that David Addington and John Yoo authored a set of documents that basically rewrote the Constitution to conform to Richard Nixon's assertion to David Frost, "If the President does it then it's not illegal".

It is also well known that ever since entering office, Dick Cheney's primary mission has been to systematically dismantle every statute, argument and interpretation that in any way impinges on the President's ability to act as a law unto himself. The result is as predictable as sunrise and the list above, including the indefinite detentions of citizens, cruel and degrading treatment of POW's, extraordinary rendition of vocal opponents (from Canada) and, need I add, the destruction of public records, follows from this as surely as day follows night.

FISA is just one battleground, but the larger war is for the soul and conscience of America.

Left at The Obama Campaign Blog

I've been watching the comments over at Glen Greenwald's and remained quite alarmed at the number of people, many of whom I respect who are now on record that they can no longer support our Candidate.

I think Obama has seriously miscalculated the passion and reach of what the the MSM tries to write off as "those, like Senator Russ Feingold and assorted civil liberties activists" (Joe Klein) and also underestimated the fatigue Americans experience when exposed to 24/7-9/11 attack ads designed to gin up fear and nothing else.

Americans are notably brave and are looking for someone to actually FIGHT for what is right.

Obama has seriously let us down.

Matt Stoller solicited comments for Steny Hoyer

Open Left


Here's what I wrote:

While everyone may have varying opinions about what level of leeway the NSA should have in accessing raw telco data, the bottom line remains that the President can't and shouldn't have unlimited leeway in circumventing the law. By pressing for the current "compromise" you are giving the current President and all future Presidents the freedom to act contrary to any and all controls that were put in place by the Framers of our Constitution.
If the President is free to order violations of the law and his AG is free to shred whatever civil recourse the victims of those violations may have, then we might as well go ahead and declare the rest of the Constitution null and void as well.

I know it's hard to believe

But Joe Klein is once again, shockingly wrong about FISA.

Swampland

My response:

Well at least if we're going to vehemently disagree, I finally have a coherent paragraph or two to disagree with.

Your bullet 4 is the one that is entirely wrong. The telecom immuninty is not a subsidiary issue. It is the sole issue.

Everyone agrees that the law needed to be updated in order to cover gaps in the existing law. However the correct procedure for updating a law is to bring a draft of the law you want to Congress and ask them to vote on it.

The last time I checked ordering companies to violate the law extensively and continuously for a period of years, and then only pushing for changes in statute when caught out by the NYT is doing things a$$-backward.

It is precisely when "everybody is freaking out" that constitutional protections become the most important because that is precisely when the temptations to sweep them under the rug is greatest.

I won't even begin to address why your "Roe vs Wade anaology" is flawed. We've already been down that road.

In short Joe, your efforts to be reasonable are putting you squarely on the wrong side of an important issue. And your wading into some sketchy truth-value waters in order to get there.

left on a Swampland thread....

You should familiarize yourself with the standard Time/Warner response to questions about FISA and telecom immunity. It goes like this:

I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right.....

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2007/11/fisa_more_than_you_want_to_kno.html

But having said that, the current issue before the gallery isn't whether the telecoms should be allowed to skate. The current issue is how John McCain feels about David Addington's expansive interpretation of Article II allowing the President to break existing laws with impunity.

His current position appears to be I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right.....

A Phrase I'd like to see take off...

Wired

McCain performs a reverse-double-flip-flop with a twist and embraces BushCo's all-encompassing reinerpretation of article II to read "The President can do whatever he wants. That's why he's the President"

Mike Allan

And Glenn is all over a particularly blatant case of pathalogical denial from Mike Allen

Link

ALLEN: And indeed, Scott does adopt the vocabulary, rhetoric of the left wing haters. Can you believe it in here he says the White House press corps was too deferential to the administration?

Wow - who'd a thunk?

I think that is rather important so I'm reposting my reaction there, over here:

Alternate reality
Apparently there are still journalists who inhabit a parallel Universe. That would be the one where vast stockpiles of WMD's were found and our soldiers were indeed greeted by a grateful populace as liberators and bringers of Democracy.

We've come full circle. In 2005 when "Feet To The Fire" came out the fact that the press had been disasterously wrong about what to expect in Iraq was sufficiently fresh, that there could indeed be a reevaluation of the press's role in leading us into war.

Feet To The Fire

But as of 2008, we've now 'been there-done that' and memories have faded enough that the original roles of cheerleaders and 'haters' can be reprised.

I think if someone's going to dredge up the phrase "left wing hater" and try to get any fresh mileage out of it, the suggested opposite should be "right-wing liar".

(Though the latest new from Dunkin' Donuts suggests that right-wing haters are alive and well)

Hearts and Minds

re: Glenn on McCain

It seems that everybody remembers what happened in Vietnam, but no one remembers what the world looked like at the time. The US was locked in a seemingly mortal conflict with the forces of "Godless Communism" but because of the world-ending nature of Nuclear warfare, it was necessary that all our battles be fought in small containable proxy wars.

It was also true that score was kept over who was winning this global conflict by the number of "proxy states" that could be claimed by each side. One of the results of this though was that the competition for allies involved both the carrot and stick sides of the equation. The US and USSR competed heavily for allies by spreading aid around like candy (both in military hardware and food/economic aid.) In that context, it was important that we not be seen as irreparably evil. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind still matters and carpet bombing civilian popuations is not the best way to differentiate yourself from the evil commies.

When I was an adolescent

and was working on developing my political and religious views one of the things I did was sit down and read the New Testatament confining my attention to the four Gospels figurung that they were the closest thing I could find to 'source' material.

What I saw astounded me. The amount of energy that is spent condemning hypocrisy and, more importantly, false piety based on strict adherence to doctrine rather than the common sense kindness to our fellow travelers is boggling especially when you consider how much the very attitudes that Jesus railed against have become reincorporated into our Religious institutions.

I give the Vatican credit for being more consistent about life issues than the Right here in America, but anyone who considers abortion a more grave evil than launching a war of aggresion has carefully avoided thinking about the nature of suffering.

In response to:

CIA Foresaw Interrogation Issues
Agency Considered Investigations 'Virtually Inevitable'

If for the sake of argument, we ignore the morality or lack therof involved in waterboarding and get back to what is known.

The CIA was directed by people in the highest reaches of the executive branch to engage in behavior which they knew might result in prosecution. In order to protect themselves from that eventually they directed John Yoo to write a series of documents providing cover for their likely illegal acts. When Jack Goldsmith, (who by the way, is rather sympathetic to the idea of the CIA taking 'risks') reviewed the legal justifications authored by Yoo, he found them to be stretched beyond defensibilty and promptly withdrew them. Since that time a lot of effort has gone into A: legalizing the behavior that took place and B: hiding the decisionmaking process that led to the behavior.

So even if you think that waterboarding is the coolest thing since sliced bread, it still doesn't change the fact that the administration engaged in a conspiracy to violate existing law and in obstruction of justice behind a wall of 'national security' since those violations took place.

This is equally true in the case of FISA.

You don't have to think that the underlying behavior is necessarily bad to nevertheless acknowlege that it was against the law at the time it was done.

Call me a stickler but that doesn't strike me as a minor point.

Joe Klein linked to a speech by Joe Biden

PDF

So I left a reaction:

Ironically, even though I agree with almost every sentiment expressed in the speech, my concetration was distracted by seeing exactly where it could be attacked by hawks. (Maybe I'm picking up some of Joe's bad habits.)

The troublesome spots:
It starts with the very language the President has tried to impose: “the global war on terror.” That is simply wrong. Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. If we can’t even identify the enemy or describe the war we’re fighting, it’s difficult to see how we will win.

While I agree that the crucial falure of both BushCo and McCain is to be able to correctly identify our enemies, to flatly say that the phrase 'global war on terror' is wrong is to invite ridicule.

Right now, Iran loves the status quo, with 140,000 Americans troops bogged down and bleeding, caught in a cross fire of intra Shi’a rivalry and Sunni-Shi’a civil war.

Again, he's conveying an unpleasant truth but to refer to our troops as "bogged down and bleeding" is going to distract from his message by creating a negative soundbite.

Among the good spots:
Worse, saying you’re happy to stay in Iraq for one hundred years fuels exactly the kind of dangerous conspiracy theories about America’s intentions throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds that we should be working to dispel

Doesn't anyone else remember that we had permanent basing in Saudi Arabia and that that was the main casus belli cited for Al Qaeda's attacks on us? Clearly, one of the main reasons we attacked Iraq was so that we could have a place to set up permanent bases in the region. Why is this never discussed in these terms?

It’s amazing how little faith this administration has in the power of America’s ideas and ideals.

All these fronts throughout the Middle East and South Asia are connected. But this administration has wrongly conflated them under one label, and argued that success on one front ensures victory on the others. It has lumped together, as a single threat, extremist groups and states more at odds with each other than with us. It has picked the wrong fights at the wrong time, failing to finish a war of necessity in Afghanistan before starting a war of choice in Iraq.

Again, the mislabelling of our enemies is a constant strategy applied by the White House and there's every indication that Sen. McCain intends to continue the practice.

This is why every time he fails to differentiate Shia and Sunni or relies on the Commander of the wrong theater for advice, he should be called out on it strongly.

Our country can not afford 4 more years of willful ignorance.

Saint McCain clueless again.....

Army Times

Count me among those curious to see how long the myth that McCain has any credibility, let alone expertise on Military affairs and foreign policy (which in a sane world wouldn't be the same thing) when he consistently and repeatedly gets important or, dare I say it, vital details flat-out wrong.

My guess is at least another 8 months

If I'm going to be mentioned by name at Swampland

The least I can do is link to it.....
Underplayed Story of the Day

McCain on his Sunni/Shiite 'confusion': Qaeda not just Sunni

Sen. John McCain, defending his recent troubles differentiating between the two major branches of Islam, suggested today that the terror network al-Qaeda encompasses both Sunni and Shi'a...

I'm posting this now, because I'm going to need to remeber it later.
McCain could have insisted that he had misspoken again but rather than continue down that path, he decided that lying was easier.

read more | digg story

War Games

I have frequently said that war is not a football game, but I can't help but notice that for a significant part of modern history, it has been treated as if it were. Certainly the concepts of a "Declaration of war" and "Terms of Surrender" indicate that there are rules that are abided by even when the game is mortal combat. By definition, terrorists don't abide by the rules. This is why BushCo went to such great lengths to coin and define the term "illegal combatant" to describe why the "normal" rules of war don't apply. Even if we're willing to concede that the existence of Al Qaeda and other groups and their resorting to random violence directed at civilians are reasonable justification to "change the rules" in order to accomodate a new reality, having changed the rules, we now have to live with the results.

One of the first casualties of this rule change is the concept of Victory. Every time we talk of "Winning or Losing" in Iraq or in the larger GWOT, we are still using the old 'football game" model of warfare. In a football game, there is an end state after which the game is over. If the Geneva conventions are to be regarded as "quaint" then certainly any talk of victory should be regarded as delusional.

The Administration (and McCain) can't have it both ways.

Still Can't identify the enemy

Estimates vary on what percentage AQI represents of the insurgent/sectarian/militia forces, but JH is right. AQI is a fraction of the insurgency, five percent at most, probably less. In the words of one analyst, it is a "microscopic terrorist organization."


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/187959.php

Theres no way I can stress enough how important this is. We are being lied to yet again.

Never Underestimate the Power of Denial:

Quoting from GG:

They are desperate to wash their hands of that which they enabled so they can pretend they never did.

But the people who caused and enabled that to happen are -- understandably so -- desperate to avoid acknowledging what they've done

http://phd9.blogspot.com/2008/03/deifying-military.html

This new post accords well with my thoughts as I was driving to work this AM. As I mention in the linked post, agressive warfare (or any warfare for that matter) involves engaging in activities that if committed within society rather than beyond it, would be unthinkable crimes. The natural reaction to engaging in this sort of activity would be intense remorse. Therefore the exercises and rituals we go through alleviating our guilt take significant amounts of energy. The ceremonies we go through on Memorial Day taking special care to honor OUR losses and the special respect we accord veterans are examples of the sort of thing I'm referring to. Even here, many self-identified liberals and war opponents nevertheless go out of their way to make sure that we acknowlege the sacrifice of those who serve.

While there's nothing wrong with this, by itself, I have to note that it creates a severe amount of distortion in our thinking when it comes to determining the best course of action in Iraq. We can't erase what we've already done, but to leave would lock-in the immorality of our prior actions. As long as we stay, there is hope for redemption. It's sad to see happening but we can't underestimate the power of the force I'm describing.

left on a Joe Klein Thread at Swampland

Ramesh Ponnuru:

I assume that Klein will react calmly should conservatives wish to make the opposite argument, that conservatism is more patriotic than liberalism?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is precisely why the framing matters.

Joe may brag that he's on the right side of the debate because the NRO is willing to claim a monopoly on patriotism but Joe is the one who handed him the knife.

Perhaps we should examine core assumptions. WHY do we even consider patriotism a virtue, let alone get into fights over who's entitled to it? When does patriotism cease being a virtue and instead becomes jingoism and exceptionalism and emotional cover for evil acts?

Who's willing to raise the question? And when someone does, why is there a concerted effort from EVERYONE to vilify that person and shout them down.

I'm still PO'ed about Natalie Maines and it's EXACTLY the same dynamic that's being appiled to Rev. Wright.

How DARE he suggest that we're not angelic!

Deifying the Military.

I'v been thinking about the self-priming nature of military involvment.

The simplest expression of it is "they shall not have died in vain" but the process is actually more complex than that.

The longer version is that because the act of becoming a soldier and engaging in warfare involves trading in the moral codes that guide people within their civilizations for a different set that allows for random killing and dehumanizing certain groups, a protective shell is set up to prevent the remorse that such behavior would normally elicit. The protective shell, of course includes all the pomp and circumstance that we use to honor the fallen and the increased stature (and trust) that we place in veterans but the same shell creates taboos that prevent us from discussing warfare rationally. It simply can't be done without someone invoking the spectre of "dishonering the troops"

The tragic result is of course that the possibility of reconsidering bad moves or disengaging from a conflict that has not been emphatically "won" becomes exceedingly difficult.

And as seen from the outside, the behavior that results seems quite insane

Too good not to quote

President McCain, however, can be expected to blaze new trails of American hubris. He is a "national greatness conservative" which can be described as a lethal combination of neoconservatism and Kissingerian realism (in McCains case, with the temperament of Frank Sinatra on too much coffee and nicotine.)



Digby

Taking back Patriotism!

"Patriotism" is a word that has suffered severe abuse of late. While it used to mean love of one's country, it is rapidly being twisted to mean love of the military and blind acceptance of the staus quo.

I happen to consider myself patriotic. I love my Country deeply. I particularly love the fact that I am free to point out when I think my Country is acting in an immoral manner and needs to change course.

People who don't understand this and instead use "patriotism" as a code word to enforce conformity sadden me.

Sorry, that's just the way I feel.

An Open Letter to Ana Marie Cox....

AMC,
I appreciate your efforts and your honesty. Now here's my concern. It is well known that a major part of the sales effort behind the Iraq war involved repeatedly using Saddam Hussein and OBL's name (or Al Qaeda) in the same sentence so that the association was burned into the public awareness even though there were no statements you could point to where the connection was directly asserted and therefore could be pointed out as a lie.

You just used the phrase "He is for a muscular use of American power" which is sort of misleading because we all know that "muscular" in that context is a euphemism for "explosive".

So now we have the candidate repeatedly asserting that the Iranians are assisting Al Qaeda in Iraq knowing full well that A: Al Qaeda is just a brand name and the group in Iraq bears little connection to the terrorists who actually attacked us and B: They are NOT being aided by Iran.

Perhaps you can begin to appreciate my concern when the Candidate for CiC is using sloppy language in order to justify as you put it a "muscular" posture. We've already been down this road and the consensus opinion is that it sucks.

My other concern is that for McCain's sloppy language and deliberate conflation of different enemies to succeed, it is necessary that the public continue to be misled. This is where you come in. JK has already gone on record noting that McCain is being dishonest but the coverage surrounding the candidtae continues to be complicit in the effort to mislead.

Did I mention that Scherer just fell for the oldest trick in the book by diseminating a damaging video link accompanied by the public apology for the link.

The public needs to know the truth of what's happening in Iraq and you guys need to stop helping the candidates lie about it.

And I mean that in the nicest way possible.....

Ahh... the core assumption.

The U.S. should not -- and has no right to -- invade, bomb and occupy

Mine appears to be a minority position but I have never been able to figure out why the moral calculus that regards murder as a capital offense suddenly changes if the victim isn't a US citizen.

Even conceding that the world doesn't make sense on that basis, there's still a very carefully thought out doctrine (ratified by the USA after WWII) which states that war is only justified in self defense and that agressively attacking a country that isn't directly threatening you is criminal. (In the case of Nuremburg, it too was regarded as a Capital crime.)

So what has changed? Why does every moral calculation one could bring to bear on the subject suddeny become irrelevant when the actor in question is the US military?

What distresses me even more is the degree to which even asking such questions is treated as a taboo. The energy that has gone into the denunciation of anyone willing to ask those questions as "America haters" is directly proportional to the degree to which there are no good answers. While the cone of acceptability is shifting ever so slightly, I couldn't help but notice that Obama felt it necessary to make sure that he understands that ourt enemy is "Islamic extremism" as if that phrase actually means anything.

If Freedom is to mean anything at all, it has to mean the Freedom to question whether we are in fact wearing the white hats.

Among things I find infuriating....

www.whitehouse.gov

Instead of providing liability protection to companies that did their patriotic duty, House leaders would establish a commission to examine intelligence activities in the past that helped protect the country from further attacks after 9/11.

The damage thats being done to the concept of patriotism by this gross misuse of the term hurts me deeply.

I was totally unaware that my Patriotic duty included violating the law, trampling the Bill of Rights and underrmining the Constitutional separation of powers necessary to preserve Freedom.

But if Dana Perino said so, I guess it must be true!

Re: Obama

In response to: The Post-Fairytale Fairytale


When I compare my own attitudes to those of the archtypical "average American" I'm tempted to just throw up my hands and hang it up.

But for whatever reason, I'm finding that I'm actually enthusiastic about "the least of three evils." Perhaps I'm just hopeful over what the success of Obama's message would say about that archtypical "average American" mentioned above.

Re: Misplaced trust

I think one of the fundemental problems is people have this odd belief that physical authority somehow imparts moral authority.

While the requirements to become a policeman (for instance) include a modicum of intelligence and the lack of a criminal past, they obviously aren't insurmountable.

Likewise, the NSA and our intelligence agencies are staffed with people who A: like the idea of being spies and B: have passed whatever requirments are set up. But they're only people. There is nothing in particular that prevents them from being bored, superstitious, excessively curious or just plain stupid. And human nature itself suggests that the less supervision or accountability there is, the more likely for abuse to turn up.

The amount of covering up already going on suggests that bad behavior has already taken place but the sad fact is that if what's already taken place doesn't come to light, then the activity that eventually WILL cause the house of cards to tumble will probably be something more appalling than I have the imagination to even consider

Posted at the nam.org website:

The activists want to undermine the legitimate surveillance of foreign communications through litigation

You not only have no basis for that statement, but it borders on slanderous. All the "activists" that I am familiar with are motivated by the desire that the traditional rule of law extend to the executive branch and that any needed modifications to the FISA law are provided for by the normal political process that the Constitution requires.

The Bush administration's brazen desregard for not only the FISA law but also the Presidential Records Act and his declared intention to ignore any other portion of any statute which purports to regulate his own behavior or freedom to act, is more than adequate motivation for anyone who cares to see that the Constitutional balance of power is maintained.

The accusation that the EFF is motivated by either financial reward or the desire to inhibit intelligence collection is not only dishonest, but it undermines any legitimate arguments you would care to advance in defense of the current NSA program or the President's conduct.

Re: John McCain and Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia

The NYT included this paragraph in their story:

An insurgent group operating in Iraq, called Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, is actually a homegrown Sunni Arab extremist group that American intelligence agencies have concluded is foreign led. The extent of its links to Osama bin Laden’s network is not clear. Some leaders of the group have sworn allegiance to Mr. bin Laden, but the precise links and extent of affiliation are unknown, and it was created after the American invasion.

Now if only we could get them to lead with THAT paragraph the next one would write itself as in "John McCain used potential supporter's ignorance over this basic fact in order to level a baseless charge against Barack Obama, thus opening himself to charges of stupidity or dishonesty or both."

There is some difference

In response to:

Glenn Greenwald

Let me preface by stating that contrary to being naive, stating that he'd be willing to go after OBL in Pakistan and then experiencing the backlash was precisely what drew me to Obama's campaign.

Quoting something I posted elsewhere:

Hunting OBL in Pakistan" was Obama "Emperor's New Clothes" moment. He actually had the audacity to state the obvious and the shocked gasps of the King's court are still resonating....

I think the only thing he might be criticized for is staing bluntly what's been happening quietly.

Having said that though, I will note that much of what Obama is being criticized for isn't that he'd express willingness to go after OBL, it's that he's willing to bypass one of our favored dictators in order to do so.

When McCain spouts off one-liners about bombing Iran or Syria. at least he's referring to nations that are presumtive enemies (at least among the Republican base).

Pakistan (like Saudi Arabia) on the other hand has a purported "ally" in power and is hence off limits. That this is precisely why Al Qeada considers those countries safe haven is not only lost in the debate, it is absolutely taboo to discuss.

At this point I'm ready to promote this as Dirks' addendum to Occam's razor.

"If there are two competing explanations for an event and one calls for someone being surprisingly brilliant and the other calls for them to be incredibly stupid - stupidity wins every time."

Always nice to make the main page

....www.time-blog.com/swampland/

UPDATE: Commenter Paul Dirks wants to know:

So are the Union officials responding to their membership or attempting to guide them? I'd be interested in how the people who WEREN'T undecided fell

Sometimes the jokes just write themselves

went out to microphones set up on the Capitol steps, and accused the Democrats of a political stunt.

Politico

If this quote is accurate

Clinton dismisses weekend losses

Clinton argued that caucuses are "primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that."
then shame on Hillary.....

Activist:

Someone who cares sufficently about the issues to actually participate in the political process in a meaningful manner.

compare

The Electorate:

Someone who only shows up at the polls on election day and pulls the lever for whoever makes them feel better based on what Wolf Blitzer told them the other night.

How the hell did we ever allow "activist" to become an epithet.

And shame on Hillary for using the term in that manner. Lets see how well she'll fare without her own set of "activists"

Be vewy vewy afwaid......

http://www.infragard.net/

I'm not sure who's more paranoid. The people who feel the desire to join or the one's who get creeped out by the organization's existence.

It does seem like a bedwetter's dream come true!

I'm reminded of the Jr Detective cards you used to be able to send in for from the back of cereal boxes. Only instead of decoder ring, you get access to an FBI maintained VPN. How cool is that?!!

Reacting to Romney's concession...

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror

Hmmm.....

Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist before the invasion.

And Al Qaeda in Pakistan appears to have agreed to a cease-fire with the government of President Pervez Musharraf.

And Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell is doing his best to make sure that we're experiencing terror.

I guess the Republicans are running on a platform of "change" after all!

Re: Signing statements

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but to me, the fact that Bush is derailing the Constitutional checks and balances that were put in place to prevent executive abuse and overreach is worse and more alarming than most of the particulars of his particular abuses.

And to make matters worse, much of it appears to be due to simple laziness. In particular, when it became clear that the Poindexter-led TIPS program wasn't going to pass muster, he simply ordered it in place anyway. That this has evolved into the current FISA controversy is unfortunate, but the sad fact is, that if he had pushed for the reforms contained in the August bill back when he needed them, retroactive immunity wouldn't even be necessary let alone a deal-breaker.

Surge....

Can we please acknowlege that the "Surge"(tm) was a marketing ploy aimed at placating Americans into accepting permanent bases in Iraq and as such, it has worked like magic.

The President has just released a signing statement asserting the power to ignore even "the power of the purse" the Constitution grants to Congress and is systematically dismantling the Constitution in order to expand our Imperial presence in the Middle East. In the meantime the two leading Republican candidates are busy spinning whether or not they are both fully on board with the notion that Iraq is ours to permanently control.

It's nice that journalists experiencing a new willingness to call out lies when they see them, but they seem to be complicit in totally ignoring how far the baseline of our debates have moved into territory that would have been unthinkable just ten years ago.

Re: Mukasey's radical views of Presidential supremacy.

The only comfort I get from any of this mess is from the vision of the founders of this Country pointing at our current situation and intoning "I told you so!"

If it weren't inherent in the nature of certain personality types to seize power at every opportunity and if it weren't inherent in other types to reflexively avoid conflict, then there would have been no need to create three branches of government to be set against each other and there would have been no need to create a bill of rights to guarantee freedom for minority viewpoints in the face of a potentially tyranical majority.

The founders thought hard, and debated carefully about how best to counter the natural tendency toward despotism that they saw around them.

It's a shame that it took only 230 years for the whole thing to come crashing down, but its unfortunately not all that surprising.

A quick Juxtaposition.....

From NRO:

But when the aroma of torts is in the air, Democrats find it difficult to resist their trial-lawyer constituency, who do so much to keep Democratic campaign coffers full.

Fromn EFF:

EFF is a donor-funded nonprofit and depends on your support to continue successfully defending your digital rights. Litigation is particularly expensive; because two-thirds of our budget comes from individual donors, every contribution is critical to helping EFF fight —and win—more cases.

Oh how I wish those A-holes would STOP LYING!!!!

The National association of Manufacturers asks:

Are the 13 Senators also malign and corrupt?

Yes.

This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

The administration had plenty of opportunity to taylor the FISA law to their liking when they still had a Republican majority in both houses. Why they didn't bother to do so remains mysterious. But this of course means that everything that they are saying now about how vital the latest modifications are is in fact a self serving lie.

Nothing in the current bill was unobtainable in any earlier legislative process EXCEPT retroactive immunity.

One needn't be overly suspicious or anything but rational to conclude that the scope of the NSA program has far exceeded anything that the public has been allowed to believe to date and that the members of the Senate intelligence committee (from both parties), having had the opportunity to object to the program well before today, are now complicit in trying to prevent the release of any further information on the subject.

Change!

Speaking of context-free is there any term that is more rapidly losing any meaning whatsoever than "change"?

Among the points being lost in the shuffle is the degree to which the Bush era represents not just change, but a wholesale dismantling of our entire system of government. Hiding behind petty squabbles about Harriet Meirs' subpoenas or telecom immunity is the whole notion that the Presidency is a government unto itself and is answerable to no one.

The fact that this not only isn't routinely discussed but is politely but relentlessly ignored (the elephant in the room if you will) is a symptom of a severe illness which the current election cycle is guaranteed NOT to address.

Re: FISA and the Senate

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that what's motivating Reid and Rockefeller is a simple desire for this whole issue to go away. As was mentioned upthread, they were probably briefed on the NSA program early in its run and didn't object when they had the chance. Now it would seem that EFF vs ATT is in a position to uncover the whole termite nest and they'd rather that didn't happen.

The confidence they feel over the prospect of a Dem ending up in the White House is probably firming up their resolve even more. After all, if the big prize is theirs anyway, why risk any more chips?

Core assumptions and fun-house mirrors

I decided yesterday that a large of what's wrong with our country now is attributable to attitudes that have their origins in WWII.

The US participated to prevent Germany and Japan from overrunning everything and "Taking over the world". Germany, in particular had launched an offensive campaign and appeared able to pull it off.

By opposing them, we were clearly on the side of good. Our victory on the other hand, instead of cementing the notion that no one nation "owns the world" somehow gave rise to the idea that having defeated the axis powers, we had inherited the right to control the world having taken it away from the axis powers. The fact that that there were two nations in that position made it even worse because any abuse of the notion of self-determination could be justified by the fact that if we didn't do it the Communists would.

When the USSR came tumbling down, so did all the justification we might have had for continuing our stance.

This explains handily why RWA's in this country invoke the "Coming Islamic World Caliphate" and other such nonsense. They still need someone who wants to "take over the world" because otherwise we have no moral right to interfere with self-determination ANYWHERE.

This remains the elephant in the room however, which Glenn so clearly describes in the article. Discussing whether or not our troops have the right to be someplace in particular is absolutely taboo.

Of course they do. Isn't contrrol of the world what we won in WWII?

Re: Bill Clinton vs Obama

It's actually fascinating.

His defense of the accusation of represnting the SOS was "well it was new at the time!"

Which happens to be absolutely correct. The sad fact remains that the world and particularly the USA has changed a lot in the interim since Bill left office. And there's a lot of damage to ameliorate before we can even get to the point of "more of the same"

On the particular issues of civil liberties and backing off on our fantasies of world domination though, even more of the Clinton era style of governance is inadequate.

We really DO need to change course here!

Left On Swampland

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/obama_returns_to_columbia_and.html

I always like it when my first reaction shows up in another's comment.

I think it is pretty simple minded to put every quotation of King or the civil rights movement as a discussion of race per se...

To invoke Dr. King is to push for social justice by staking the moral high ground. Dr. King's insistence on non-violence and his ability to appeal to conscience were important elements of his success.

In a day and age when we are abandoning the moral high ground at an alaming pace, Obama's call is refreshing and extrordinarily pertinent. And it has very little to do with "race".

Feingold on Edwards:

Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it

Sounds astonishingly like Obama on Clinton:

She says, 'I voted for it but I was glad to see that it didn't pass.' What does that mean?" he asked, again drawing laughter from the crowd and himself. "No seriously, what does that mean? If you didn't want to see it passed, then you can vote against it! People don't say what they mean.

Meanwhile Obama says:

Thankfully, the most recent effort to pass this legislation at the end of the legislative year failed. I unequivocally oppose this grant of immunity and support the filibuster of it. I have cosponsored Senator Dodd's proposal that would remove it from the current FISA bill and continue to follow this debate closely. In order to prevail, the proponents of retroactive immunity still have to convince 60 or more senators to vote to end a filibuster of this bill. I will not be one of them.

So his promise to "not be one of them" simply means that when the bill comes up, he will continue to campaign wherever he happens to be and won't come to Washington to vote one way or the other.

Does anyone else see a pattern?

Full text from the Obama campaign re:Telecom Immunity

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me about the proposed legislation to give phone companies legal immunity for past wiretapping. I share both your strong opposition to this special interest provision and your frustration that the President and his supporters in Congress continue to push it. This fight is just one more example of why things in Washington must change.

I have consistently opposed this Administration's efforts to use debates about our national security to expand its own power, whether that was in regard to the conduct of the Iraq war or its restrictions on our civil liberties through domestic surveillance programs or suspension of habeas corpus. It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and rejecting this unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity is a good place to start.

Giving retroactive immunity to telecom companies is simply wrong.
Thankfully, the most recent effort to pass this legislation at the end of the legislative year failed. I unequivocally oppose this grant of immunity and support the filibuster of it. I have cosponsored Senator Dodd's proposal that would remove it from the current FISA bill and continue to follow this debate closely. In order to prevail, the proponents of retroactive immunity still have to convince 60 or more senators to vote to end a filibuster of this bill. I will not be one of them.

This Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. When I am president, there will be no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens; no more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime; no more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war.
Our Constitution works, and so does the FISA court. By working with Congress and respecting our courts, I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

Thank you again for contacting me. I look forward to continuing to wage this fight.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

-----------------
Paid for by Obama for America

Let me join in the chorus

asserting that New hampshire voters were sending a clear message to the media talking heads. STFU about the tears already!

C/P from one of my GG comments

Independent of another commenters word choice, there is nevertheless a demented view that might be worth discussing.

It's called American exceptionalism, and it refers to the act of shifting moral judgements based on the identity of the actors. One needn't be "demented" in order to perceive that from the Iraqi point of view, American soldiers are unwelcome and dangerous. One needn't be demented in order to note that the rules that were written in the aftermath of WWII and which form the basis for the existence of the UN (written in large part by the US) outlaws wars of aggression and that in the absense of a direct threat from Iraq, the US is in violation of the same rules it authored.

What is demented is the idea, that torture and sexual abuse are acceptable or forgivable if carried out by "Americans" against "terrorists" if only because a terrorist once made a video of a beheading.

Once you take off the blinders that make everthing we do automatically OK, you will suddenly see that we have a lot to answer for, and calling blog commenters names isn't going to make that culpability go away.

Thats what I've been trying to say.

I wrote this at Salon:

The problem with far-right, state rights garbage is that if you strip away the racism that motivates much of it, you still end up with some pretty good arguments that rely on the actual words of our actual Constitution for their support.

Not only did our founders envision individual states with greater autonomy than what has since evolved, they also envisioned that the citizenry would be directly involved in their own defense and that an Army would only be raised in a time of War as declared by Congress.

The opportunity to remind everyone that our standing army and permanent state of war was not only anticipated by our founders but stronly warned against, can only be regarded as a positive development and if it takes a racist who panders to the religious right in order to raise that argument, then that's the fault of the Democrats who don't have the courage to raise those arguments themselves.

It appears that I'm not the only person who feels that way:

>dday guesting at Digby

Until some progressive takes to a big platform and makes these same arguments in a coherent way, there will always be room for an isolationist paleocon like Ron Paul to make it for them.

Re: Hillary's likability

I'm loathe to defend the press corp in this sort of context but I will note that the issue of Hillary's "likability" does arise naturally simply because the people who don't like her for whatever reason (beyond me) loathe her passionately.

Since the press couldn't reasonably cover this aspect lest they turn over the rock of civility that most mouth-foaming wingnuts can be found under, they instead have to talk in general terms about her "likability"

Like "states rights" and "family values", those who know the code know what's actually being said, and those who don't can go on about their lives without wondering what all the fuss is about.

scheduling request at the Obama website

I just filled in a scheduling request at the Obama website
Here's what I wrote:

It appears that Senator Dodd is on the floor of the Senate fighting for the rule of law and against blanket immunity for the telecom companies that have apparently been participating in illegal spying on Americans.

Your schedule on the other hand still has you in Iowa.

It would appear that your desire to govern exceeds your willingness to do so. I must say I'm disappoined.

Re: telecom immunity......

The administration has always had a responsibilty to either uphold the law or push for a change in the law. To have them defy the law and then push for a change only after they have been in violation for years puts the entire notion of lawfullness at risk. If they can simply make it up as they go, then what can they NOT do?

Disgusting......

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1694097,00.html

Taking a public stand against torture confers little political advantage for members of Congress — and it carries the risk of being branded as soft on terrorism.

Hmm......

Seeing that the tone of press coverage is often the deciding factor in whether something carries "political advantage", it would appear that Time magazine is pro-torture.

After all, we have it on good authority that torture saves lives. I heard it on CNN. And I saw it on 24.

It's good to know that the media is doing its part to protect us from the Islamofascist threat by making sure that human decency doesn't enter into our thinking.

From: Richard Stengel

Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:24 PM
To: Paul Dirks
Subject: Re: Joe Klein and FISA

Thank you for your email, I appreciate your comments.

TIME Columnist Joe Klein made a reporting error, which he swiftly addressed in his blog postings on TIME.com. In addition, TIME will run a correction in his column in this week's issue of the magazine.

Thank you very much,

Richard Stengel
Managing Editor
TIME

I respond again:

I appreciate your reply. I probably don’t need to mention that many of the people unhappy with the original reporting are also dissatisfied with the manner it has been addressed to date at Swampland. I sincerely hope that the print edition doesn’t leave a similar cold feeling. As I said in my original letter, this is indeed a serious issue and this incident is only a more egregious example of an ongoing pattern. I could spend several exciting hours documenting instances where the desired story-structure has guided the fact-seeking of Time reporters rather than the reverse. It is a practice which leaves one particularly open to this sort of error.

Thanks,

Paul H. Dirks

On 11/27/07 12:43 PM, "Paul Dirks" wrote:

TO:
Richard Stengel
Managing Editor
Time Magazine

While I am hopeful that this is only one among many letters encouraging you to look into the false premises that underlie the latest offering from Joe Klein headlined “The Tone Deaf Democrats”, I nevertheless hope that you will take this issue seriously. After all, fitting facts around a pre-existing story-line has proven to be a fatal practice in the not-so-distant past.

In light of the fact that the details of the FISA bill are incorrectly described in the story, I find their use to support the following statements offensive to say the least:

The Democratic strategy on the FISA legislation in the House is equally foolish.

In the lethal shorthand of political advertising, it would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans. That is well beyond stupid.

As Dodd said, when the President takes the oath of office, he (or she) promises two things: to protect the Constitution and to protect the nation against enemies, foreign and domestic.

The fact that the President’s oath of office doesn’t include “protect the nation against enemies, foreign and domestic.” should have been the first hint that the article had some factual shortcomings.

While the particulars of the errors have been documented thoroughly by others, I wish to add my voice if only to stress that this is not a trivial matter. Stories are the currency of thought, and the act of furthering the story that Democrats are confused about National Security by spreading disinformation and confusion about their actual position does nothing but harm Time’s reputation as a source of news.

Respectfully,

Paul H. Dirks

A comment worth preserving:

Link

Joe's heart leapt at the words, and tears formed in his eyes. The news from Iraq was good, but the sinking meant that at last, the war he'd been waiting for was on. Soldiers marched across the screens, and his grateful tears dripped into his non-fat decaf vanilla soy double mocachinetto. As the President addressed the press in the Rose Garden, he finally knew what what he had been fighting to realise for so many years: he loved Big Dubya.

Spine......aka Leadership

Without even bothering to mention Joe Klein or David Broder, the broader point, that Americans admire people who will stand up on principles and fight against the tide needs to be stressed repeatedly. Our culture, beginning with that American Revolution itself and continuing throughout the process of settling the West is infused with the story line.

We certainly don't need to be reminded of the power of "flip-flop" to know that capitulation to RW talking points is significantly MORE harmful to one's National Security cred than standing and fighting for what is clearly and demonstrably the right thing to do. Who after all, wants to be defended against terrorists by a capitulating weakling.

Joe Klein is indeed a symptom of the illness which infects this country. But I can't help rememeber a few months ago when everyone was lamenting Obama's naivety and inexperience becuase he had the audacity to mention that it might become necessary to intervene in Pakistan.

Apparently stupidity sells.

I write the United States Bridge Federation

I read with interest the New York Times story detailing potential sanctions against the women who held up the sign at the awards ceremony in China. I must say that I found this quote contained in the story particularly disturbing. “While I believe in the right to free speech, to me that doesn’t give anyone the right to criticize one’s leader at a foreign venue in a totally nonpolitical event,”

The reason this sounds sour to my ear is simply this:

If you can’t criticize your leader then why bother having free speech in the first place.

The whole point of the American experiment is the idea that we are all created equal and share in the responsibility of governing the country. If we can’t be free to criticize our leaders, then how can we possibly expect our leaders to represent our interests? I realize that yours is not a political organization and that this is a potential source of embarrassment but I would suggest that you view it as an opportunity to express your pride in being an American and supporting the great American tradition of free speech enshrined in the 1st Amendment to our constitution.

Respectfully,

I write to AP:

Reid Threatens War Money By ANNE FLAHERTY

The story referred to in the subject line contains a sentence which is severely misleading although unfortunately quite common.

Similar legislation has routinely fallen short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate.

The “procedural hurdles” referred to in the article is in fact the announcement by Republicans of their intent to filibuster the bill. The fact that the Democrats in the Senate never in fact require the Republicans to filibuster is unfortunate. The fact that the AP routinely obscures this fact in its reporting is unconscionable. A little honesty on the subject would go a long way toward educating the public on what actually goes on in the Senate.

Re: Glenn Greenwald

What happened to the Senate's "60-vote requirement"?

Glenn's post refers to the process of providing lip-service to opposing torture without having to actually address it. Well that happens to be the exact point of the exercise. Everybody wants to be "on record" as opposing waterboarding but to actually take the position that it was illegal when performed requires that the AG then prosecute those responsible. That it the one outcome that no one, Democrat OR Republican actually wants to see happen. The fact that our administration has engaged in unfortunate and/or incompetent behavior is something everyone can nod their heads in agreement over. The fact that they are an ongoing criminal enterprise on the other hand, needs to stay under wraps. If Scooter Libby proves anything its that no one is going to jail no mattter what!

Re: Ron Paul

The thing I find interesting about libertarians is they start with an immovable principle and then shoehorn all their particular views on individual issues into the mold thus defined. This is of course in contrast to most people (particularly politicians) who start with a laundry list of opinions on particular issues and then try to assemble them into a coherent whole (Hint: most people hold incoherent views.)

I find the popularity of Ron Paul refreshing if only because it suggests that even hardcore Conservatives are sick of what this country is becoming. I regard that as good news.

The best line I've read

Concerning progress in Iraq

To me, the issue is this: We keep talking about whether the glass if half full or half empty. But since the liquid in the glass is gasoline, the real question is, who's holding the match?

Turning Point For Iraq

This is notable too because (appearing on AmericaBlog) it helps dilute the slander that liberals don't desire success in Iraq.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul for Republicans represents having your cake and eating it too. Supporting him is the easiest way to repudiate BuschCo, endless aggressive war, torture, and warrantless wiretapping without having to hold your nose and vote for Universal health care and Gun control.

Keyboard Kommandos

I always thought The Poor Man's schtick was just sorta entertaining but when I encountered these guys actually worrying whether FreeRepublic was being taken down by Hacker Jihadi's I knew that truth was indeed stranger than fiction.

Orange text that actually guides people to what I am talking about so they can see for themselves!

I'd just like to take this opportunity

to wish everyone a happy and healthy Islamofascist-Under-My-Bed week.

Move along - nothing to see here

Into the memory hole

So the opinion, while interesting, is much less interesting because now we don't know how the FBI extracts false confessions from people. Looking at things from another angle, we don't know how the FBI gets suspected terrorists to tell the truth. Except that we do know this, because the opinion is still available from the How Appealing website.

Action Alert

Someone asked an easy question

asked for someone to provide an opposing explanation. To explain what is motivating the Bush administration.

Shortly after 9-11, the Bush administrration realized that they had been completely blindsided. They then proceeded to panic. They rounded up thousands of Arab Amerricans for the crime of being Arab-Americans and they implemented a clearly illegal wiretap scheme without considering the consequences. As the smoke cleared, and the feeling of panic subsided they realized two things. 1: that they were criminally liable for the behavior they had already engaged in and 2: that they had a rare opportunity to undo the damage to executive power that Nixon and Watergate had done.

Everything they have done since (including perhaps, starting a war of choice) has been in the service of covering their own culpability and reclaiming dictatorial powers for the President. The notion of providing immunity to the telecoms, fits right into the grand scheme with ease.

Stooping to their level

A number of people appear to be of the opinion that we should not stoop to the level of our opponents and should instead take the high road. I happen to agree. We should refrain from random killing. We should refrain from imprisoning people and subjecting them to sexual humiliation and waterboarding. We should refrain from gathering databases of our opponents purchasing habits and trying to correlate them with their wiretapped phone conversations. As long as we refrain from these activities, we are indeed taking the high road.

Refraining from calling the people who engage in these activities rude names however is not taking the high road. It's rolling over and playing dead

I think this story illustrates a larger point

From CNN/International

It is doubtful that foreign security contractors could be prosecuted under Iraqi law. A directive issued by U.S. occupation authorities in 2004 granted contractors, U.S. troops and many other foreign officials immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law.

Security contractors are also not subject to U.S. military law under which U.S. troops face prosecution for killing or abusing Iraqis.

I bring it up because I think it speaks to a larger issue, including the warrantless spying issue.

Put simply, when there are no constraints on behavior then humans do bad things almost as a matter of course. The contractors in Iraq are working without any enforcment of rules of engagement. It was inevitable that an event like the one documented in this story would eventually take place.

But the same thing is true in regards to the NSA and the data-mining eavesdropping programs. They may have been set up with the best of intentions, but without oversight or coherent rules, abuse is inevitable.

Re:Petraeus - Betray us

Generals are people too. To pretend that they are above criticism or ridicule is to take yet another baby step towards fascism. The whole theory that our nation was founded upon was that "all men are created equal", that there is no priveleged class and that one of the most potent tools protected by the first amendment is satire. The people who wish to take this away clearly fail to understand the nature of Freedom and I personally find that heartbreaking.

Just a thought

What compartment of the brain do the people who absolutely despise illegal immigrants store their understanding of what it is to be an American in Iraq?

Just curious.

Its time for my favorite quote re: Treason.

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

I only bring it up because, the same people who are most likely to make references to treason while referring to their fellow citizens are uncoincidentally the same people who have the least respect for the US Constitution and the Freedoms it guarantees.

Marketing Marketing Marketing.

All the time we were being told to wait for General Petraeus's report to Congress, it never occurred to me that we were waiting for the anniversary week of Sept. 11th.

It seems to me, that one of the reasons the Dems are cowering in the corner is they actually appreciate the power of brainwashing - uh I mean marketing. This year is the first where September 11th falls on the same weekday as the original tragedy. Is it a coincidence that this is the week they've chosen to roll out the "7 out of 10 Generals prefer the Surge over the next leading strategy" campaign?

"The surge is working"

The surge is working alright. It has very conveniently changed the subject about what the future in Iraq holds and bought at least one more FU for our soldiers.

Recall that during the election campaign we were endlessly presented with the choice between "staying the course" and "cutting and running". Within minutes of "cutting and running"'s victory in the election, "stay the course" immediately disappeared down the memory hole and "the Surge" was born.

I just can't believe that our entire foreign policy apparatus is being run by a marketing department but there you have it.

re: Iran

It is possible that much of what is going on is bluster and is intended for its diplomatic and political effect rather than signalling an actual imminent attack. But its worth pointing out at this time that our Constitution was specifically written to make this kind of posturing and threatening impossible. Not only was the power to make war specifically entrusted to the lower house so that such decisions would be made by those closest to the people but military appropriations were specifically limited to two years so that the executive could not feel that he had an army at his disposal to do with as he saw fit.

The founders understood human nature and were afraid of what would happen if these guidelines were not adhered to. It appears they were dead-on.

I can't let this slide.....

Dissecting Greenwald


Even though I am supposedly a member of the Very Serious People (VSP) Foreign Policy Community (FPC) I feel obliged to say that I don't agree with any of these sentiments (well except for the part about America being "inherently good.")

In case you can't tell, I have a REAL problem who anyone says that the US is inherently good. We may indeed be a force for good. We may indeed be a model for the world. But these qualities aren't "inherent". We have to work for them. And that we have to work for them suggests that we can fail. America's goodness is not inherent. Anyone who suggests that it is, is being morally lazy at the very least.

A truly excellent example of truly lousy news coverage

LA Times

I just encountered this tonight but it does provide an excellent example of how news coverage can totally distort a situation by insisting on he-said/she-said construction.

a verdict that follows a long legal battle that pitted the Bush administration against civil liberties groups over how terrorism suspects are detained and should be prosecuted.

....

The conviction of Padilla, 36, and two codefendants was a boost for an administration that had received sharp criticism for holding Padilla as an "enemy combatant" for 3 1/2 years without due process until the courts insisted he be charged with a crime or set free.

The government's success in the Padilla case could now encourage officials to bring other enemy combatants into federal courtrooms.

"This clearly shows that in some cases, yes, the process can handle it," Morford said. "You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. And these particular charges did work in a regular criminal trial."

Donna Newman of New York, Padilla's initial attorney who fought for months just to get a lawyer-client meeting with him, agreed, saying the administration was wrong not to "trust the courts" for so long.

"I don't necessarily agree with the verdict," she said. But in the future, "the government should be hard-pressed to say the [criminal justice] system doesn't work. It shows you can bring forth the evidence and try someone in court."

But Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said the jury's decision was not a blanket approval of how the administration had dealt with terrorism defendants.

"This verdict, if it stands, cannot be seen as an endorsement of a regime of unreviewable executive detention," he said. "President Bush should not take today's ruling as permission to continue to hold Americans outside the law at his whim."

If, as has been argued, the guilty verdict proves that the Criminal justice sytem CAN deal with terrorist cases then how is the conviction a boost for the administration which has insisted all along that it cannot? The answer is of course that it isn't and this particular reporter is full of malarky.

Don't forget...we were insane.

While I'm not going to sit here and exclaim that 9-11 changed everything, I will point out that it did make a lot of people who were reasonably secure suddenly feel helpless. There was a lot of importance to the idea that we DO SOMETHING even if what we did didn't bear any particular relationship to the causes of our discomfort. Whenever the subject comes up, I always like to remind people what happened to the Dixie Chicks. The reaction to Natalie Maines's comment can be described many ways but rational is not among them.

We were led into Iraq because at the time we were ready to be led anywhere and Bushco saw an opportunity in our confusion. To this day, they're still trying to exploit the confusion (see AQ vs AQI) but we're slowly waking up and people aren't buying it anymore.

More religion.....

This remains a danger

For a person to think that most or all Christians are like the Hagee groups would be a mistake as I have found many that are not in any way like these particular folks are.

As one well versed in Dawkins and Shermer and Dennett, I am well aware of the tendency to paint all Religious people as equally misguided but it's both politically inexpedient and logically fallaceous to do so. (My personal view is that the Universe as a whole should be given at least as much credit for being conscious as we give the subset we refer to as Humanity.)

However, to take a late interpretation of a allegorical story and turn it into a course of political action that includes the wholesale slaughter of innocent people, pretty thoroughly flies in the face of anything that any thinking person could possibly consider sacred.

Again quoting myself....

One of the tactical mistakes that far-left types frequently make is that they write off people with strong religious convictions as being unreachable or unreasonable. What they fail to realize is that one of the reasons that Christianity is so popular is that many of its moral precepts make perfect sense whether you happen to believe in magic or not.

When Jefferson wrote "we hold these truths to be self-evident" he of course meant that certain things are so obvious that they don't need to be defended. One of these self-evident truths is that if you're of the opinion that human life is sacred then you should oppose war with at least the same degree of fervor that you spend opposing abortion.

If on the other hand, your theology is based on the premise that pleasure is sinful but that pain is desirable, then it makes perfect sense to cheerlead warfare. Such thinking should be exposed at every opportunity.



Link

Josh nails it..

What I've been trying to say....

And groups all over the Middle East, who have little if any actual connection to al Qaeda, are adopting the name al Qaeda in vicarious support or sympathy or, perhaps mostly and most damningly, because we've managed to make it a strong brand.


Link

Words matter.....

But these are stories you haven’t been reading in The Times in recent weeks as the newspaper has slipped into a routine of quoting the president and the military uncritically about Al Qaeda’s role in Iraq — and sometimes citing the group itself without attribution.

And in using the language of the administration, the newspaper has also failed at times to distinguish between Al Qaeda, the group that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, and Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an Iraqi group that didn’t even exist until after the American invasion.
link

I sometimes find it useful

To remind myself that we humans are in fact a just bunch of apes with a modicum of extra neural circutry that allows us to communicate more effectively. The core forces that drive our behavior remain the same ones that drive chimps to gather in bands and sort themselves by rank.

I need to remind myself of that because otherwise the part of me that thinks rationally and believes that "all men (and women) are created equal" just gets overwhelmed with the galling cruelty and stupidity that permeates our existence

Words Matter

I've always thought that the word "terrorist" should be defined as anyone who has committed an act of terrorism or anyone who plans on committing an act of terrorism in the future. It seems perfectly reasonable and it encompasses thousands of dangerous people. Unfortunatetly now "terrorist" has been redefined to include anybody who doesn't like the USA plus anybody who happens to occupy any real estate we're targeting at the moment. So we've instantly gone from facing thousands of terrorists to facing millions! No wonder the chickhawks are so scared!

What you've described in your post, is the redefinition of the word "insurgent" in precisely the same manner. It does make things more difficult when insurgents are routinely elected in the Democracies we're so busy imposing. But nevertheless in this Orwellian world we now occupy, "insurgencies" are bound to be springing up all over the place. All we have to do is target a building and "POOF", its instantly filled with insurgents!

A discussion on religion arose at swampland

Here are my contributions:

Whether one beleives in a diety or not, its hard to ignore the fact that religion is pretty ubiquitous among us humans. If you count choosing who gets elected President among your goals, then you ignore this fact at your peril.

Many people confuse freedom of religion with freedom from religion and the Republicans of course use this confusion to their advantage.

I've always felt that anyone who thinks the Creator of the Known Universe plays favorites among separate religious practices (let alone political affiliations) is suffering from a supreme failure of imagination.

Stressing that the message of the Democratic Party is one of inclusion should ring true among believer, agnostics and athiests alike. If not, we're just not getting the message across adequately.


Religion is simply politics seasoned with the extra confidence that comes from thinking that the Creator of the Universe has your back.

As such it's very powerful (I happen to think there's a strong genetic component) but at the end of the day, those of us who were taught that God is loving, compassionate and forgiving will believe it to the grave as will all those who think he is vengeful and jealous will do the same.

We'll leave the question of which group votes for which party as an exercise for the reader.


"and the insistence that there is a "natural" explanation for all unexplainable phenomena is no less "faith based" than the belief in God."

I'm not sure if you meant that the way I'm taking it but it's certainly incorrect.

History and experience have shown time and again that the assumption of a natural explanation for all observed phenomena is vindicated regularly and repeatedly. Without such an assumption, we'd still be having difficulties figuring out how to use twigs to harvest termites. Note that you needn't be an athiest in order to insist on natural explanations. The universe is quite sufficiently miraculous on its own without having to postulate uncaused effects.


"a kind of evolving spirituality that is a mix of Buddhism and string theory/quantum physics"

My belief is reasonably easy to state. The Universe should be given at least as much credit for consciousness as it's contents. It is therefore at least as self aware as we are. Like us, I beleive it strives to become more self aware. After that, it's physics all the way down.


"but with what exactly do you disagree when it comes to Jesus' exhortation to lead moral lives and love each other?"

That would be the people who twist the "lead moral lives" part into a reason to hate each other.

"When a woman was brought before Him for her transgressions, Jesus preached mercy, but then told her to go and sin no more."

This is a continuation of the whole "log in your eye vs. a speck in your brother's" message. We humans are imperfect and are not in a position to judge each other let alone invoke God's name when doing so. Those who miss this simple message, as mudcat pointed out in the original post can be reasonably accused of blasphemey Of course the accusation itself would be subject to the exact same logical failure.

In the end the message is clear, that we should be tending to our own transgressions first and formost and leave those of our neighbors in more capable hands.

re: Rural voter

I think the issue of whose Urban vs Rural is less important that the issue of who has experienced actual exposure to people who are unlike them. While city dwellers encounter people of differing religion and/or race or ethniciity routinely, people who live in small towns have less such exposure but unfortunately so do people who live in the vast suburban enclaves that surround our major cities.

The cultural inexperience we're associating with the "rural" mindset is far more widespread than the actual membership in the rural demographic.

El Cid comments at GG...

American security policy under Republicans is like an pest exteriminator company run by bitter ex-pro wrestlers who are blindfolded and given only methamphetamine, Red Bull, and axes and told to go into every home with full force in order to teach those damn insects a lesson, so that their insect sisters and brothers will hear about what horrible things happened in the house torn apart by the confused blind muscleheads.

-- El Cid

Link

I comment at WaPo re: Libby

I've always thought that the reason we have courts and rules of evidence and Grand Jury proceedings was to insure that when someone was indicted, that it was based on a preponderance of evidence and when convicted, it was based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now I realize that things said in forums such as this or "the court of public opinion" don't necessarily have to meet these stringent tests, but don't we think that by this time "Libby was framed!" would have outlived its usefulness?

Just asking?

Once again I cut & paste one of my GG comments to post here.

Two conclusions are inescapable....

Have you conveniently forgotten that atheists killed more people than religionists by a substantial multiple, last century? Stalin and Mao alone evened the score for a large portion of human history. So much for "reason".

1: Many people have killed many other people.

2: Many people have religious beliefs.

Any conclusions beyond these two are unsupported BS.

For the record, what all the mass murderers have in common is a willingness to classify people into arbitrary but reasonably easily delineated groups and declare members of one of the groups to be "unclean". The stated goal is inevitably the betterment of "mankind" ignoring the fact that mankind is made up of individuals each "created equal" with an equally sacred stake in living, loving and raising families who share their goals and values.

If you are among those, willing to condemn such a group to the point of wishing death upon their members, then you share in the evil that the mass-murderers represent.

Failure of Education....

Since I never raised children, I had the luxury of being able to ignore whatever has been happening in our schools for quite a while now. It's clear to me now that whatever it was, its now a major contributer to the current pollution of our discourse.

While individual reporters are merely churning out whatever is rewarded institutionally by their organizations, in the meantime those higher up in the organization are concentrating their efforts on determining whatever will do the most to enhance revenue flow.

We can all see the results of this process, which of course moves expensive haircuts and continuing saga's of missing pretty white women to the fore of news coverage. (Never underestimate the power of that photo that accompanies the 10 second teaser for the next segment)

So, if as I assert, the lousy news coverage is demand driven, how can we create demand for substantive coverage? Why, in school of course. If we were doing an adequate job of teaching that the demands of citizenship include paying attention, developing informed opinions and voting, then (eventually) the demand for decent serious news coverage would grow.

Needless to say, the process takes years to accomplish, but it is simply one of the better investments we can make in our future.

I always enjoy when libertarianism is discussed...

Because it usually causes everyone to examine their core assumptions. During the Viet Nam era, I was too young to be subject to the draft, but it certainly profoundly affected my attitude toward the coercive power of the state. When you peel away all the pretty words, what remains are people with blue uniforms and guns who reserve the right to shoot you if you don't come quietly. The rest is simply arguing over who deserves to be on the receiving end of such treatment

What is winning?....II

I made a comment several threads back that speaking of "winning" or "losing" in Iraq was misguided and counerproductive..

Leave it to someone much smarter to explain in detail why...

TPM:

With Harry Reid's controversial 'war is lost' quote and with various other pols weighing in on whether we can 'win' or whether it's 'lost', it's a good time to consider what the hell we're actually talking about. Frankly, the whole question is stupid. Or at least it's a very stilted way of understanding what's happening, geared to guarantee President Bush's goal of staying in Iraq forever.

Important questions from Kevin Drum

So here are some questions for every one of the 2008 presidential candidates: Do you care about Muslim public opinion? Do you think it impacts U.S. national security? Which aspects of American foreign policy do you think contribute to these attitudes? What concrete steps would you take to change these parts of our foreign policy

Link

The amount of ignorance that permeates our discourse is astounding and depressing. The sad fact remains, these are NOT the questions the candidates will face.

What is victory?

We need to work very hard to get past the idea that the Iraq war is a contest that be lost or won. It is in fact a situation that can improve or degenerate. But as long as people are thinking in terms of "winning" or "losing" they are imagining an outcome or end state after which there's no longer a contest. This is of course nonsense. But unless I'm wrong, this whole Harry Reid flap is based on this persistent illusion. By using the term "losing" he bought into the frame.

We need to work past it or it will continue to bite us in the ass.

Re: The surveillance State....

In times like these....
it always fun to regurgitate the outrage that Republicans expressed over the Clipper Chip proposals during the Clinton years.

John Ashcroft

But doing so reminds us that the battle for personal privacy cuts across party lines and that there are no shortage of Democrats who are willing to sacrifice freedom if they think it will give them "law and order" or "war on terror" cred.

I've always assumed that every link I've ever clicked as well as every case of beer I've ever purchased was available as a data point for anyone willing to dig for it. And who even knows how many servers the photos we take with our cel-phones end up on.

One of the downsides of technological advancement is that anything that can be done will be done at some point. Does everyone remember the talk of internet-enabled refrigerators?

Needless to say, the more connected we all are, the more irresistable the urge to monitor and control will become. It's just plain human nature.

Re: Michael Goldfarb and "near dictatorial power"

Anyone with a passing knowlege of history and the Constitution know why this "dictatorial" thinking is misguided and wrong. What I personally find more interesting is the insights into human nature which were apparent to the founders that caused them to frame the founding documents the way they did in the first place.

They knew that they had to impart the war-making powers to the legislature specifically because as the representatives most closely accountable to the people, they would be the ones least likely to use military engagements as a tool of self aggrandizement. They understood well how the combination of a fearful populace and ambitious leaders could result in evil forces acting under the umbrella of arbitrary law.

To those who think of themselves as individuals first and then members of society, is is indeed excruciatingly basic and obvious. To those who subsume their individuality to their tribal loyalties, it needs to be explained....again....and again.....and again....