Enemy Combatant
Friday, January 27, 2006
SOTU? STFU!
Who needs to watch the State of the Union speech?
The Upright Citizens' Brigade brings it to you four days early!
Point Of Order, Mr. Chairman!
Here's a project for everybody: Get your state legislature to pass a resolution supporting Bush's impeachment. It's actually one of the approved statutory methods to start impeachment proceedings in the House.
What's more, if the resolution makes clear it's for "impeachment," and not simply for "investigations leading to impeachment," it takes priority over other House matters, and must be voted on first, ahead of the rest of their agenda.
What if each of the blue states, in turn, sent the Congress these impeachment demands, one by one? Maybe we'd actually have a major topic of discussion leading into the November elections that breaks our way, for a change.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Yo Ho Ho -- Time To Pirate Up!
The current crop of Democratic Senators remind me of the meek, elderly, veddy British chartered accountants of the Crimson Permanent Assurance Company, in Monty Python's Meaning of Life. Wetted fingers forever to the wind, they wait endlessly in the Doldrums for a strong gust of public opinion to break their spell of inertia and send them sailing toward victory over their vicious corporate overseers (read: the GOP).
Well, fantasies are great -- but if that pirate raid is ever going to happen, they've got to learn to pull up anchor and set their own course. And to do so, they would do well to learn a little about the swashbuckling origins of the term "filibuster."
The first order of business, of course, would be to force Sam Alito to walk the plank. Despite what the so-called liberal media are telling us, his ascension to Sandra O'Connor's seat on the bench is not a done deal, because their calculus has discounted entirely the possibility of a filibuster. The public, we are endlessly assured, supports the Alito nomination, because they believe he won't vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. But the public, like Mr. Bumble's law, is often an ass, an emptyheaded cypher offering opinions based on nothing more than misinformation and lies.
While time is running out, it nevertheless is yet on the Democrats' side on this issue. They have done a piss-poor job of "framing the issues" with Alito: pointing out how the Court doesn't need another regional, political, partisan, constitutional, ethnic, religious, educational and familial clone of Antonin Scalia; how the Federalist fetish for a "unitary executive" is the looniest of tunes this side of Scientology, and Alito is its Tom Cruise; how giving Busholini unchecked power will make reversal of Roe v. Wade a minor blip on this country's low road down to fascism; how problems might arise when a supposedly secular country that claims to be 52% Protestant and less than one-quarter Catholic decides to put its first Papist majority on its highest Court.
If you haven't yet contacted your two Senators in Washington, to urge them to filibuster the Alito nomination, I ask you: What's your excuse? Do you care about your country, and its Bill of Rights? As for me, if I don't see a filibuster out of these invertebrates in the Upper Chamber, they'll never see another dime out of me -- it's that simple.
The second order of business for the Democrats is to show the public that all is NOT well in Washington, and that we face a danger far greater than jihadists brandishing boxcutters -- but this will have to be done by "catapulting the propoganda," if I may borrow a brain-addled phrase. The best way to show that sort of outrage, it seems to me, and right in the teeth of the complacent, wingnut-enabling media, is for our elected Democratic Representatives and Senators to rise up, as one, during next week's State of the Union speech, and collectively walk out on Bush and all his corrupt GOP colleagues. Let his empty rhetoric echo off the walls of a half-empty chamber, for a change. Refuse to act as props in Caesar's annual bread and circuses act anymore. It's mutiny time, Mr. Christian!
Believe me, if the Democrats did these two things, the public would take notice. The GOP would go into their Screaming Banshee routine, and so would their sycophants in the Beltway media, but so what? I'm sick and tired of the Democrats' sniveling battered spouse routine, ever hopeful that more beatings will improve our morale. This is a public that the GOP has numbed down and dumbed down to the level of enjoying professional wrestling -- let's give them a smackdown they won't soon forget.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Great White Elephant-Mockingbird Speak Heap Big Bullshit
Over at firedoglake, they point out the forked-tonguedness of the "bipartisan Abramoff scandal" GOP meme that the Washington Post is trying to peddle, like so many cheap beads and blankets:Is [the WaPo] trying to assert that the Indian tribes were just too stupid to know on their own that giving campaign contributions to Harry Reid might be a wise thing to do? Is he saying that they needed Jack Abramoff to hold them by their little Indian hands while they wrote their big Indian checks?
More reliable news organizations are quick to point out that Indian donations to Democratic candidates dropped dramatically during the Abramoff era, and it does not take tremendous gifts of deduction to conclude that this was probably the direct result of Abramoff's influence. But there is consistently a strong current of anti-Indian condescension in the Post's reporting and in Mr. Willis's assessment of the situation, and they really need to either prove that the Indian tribes would not have given this money to these Democrats if Abramoff hadn't told them to or STFU.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
A Sports Analogy Suitable For "Framing"
Desperate to drag as many Democrats down with them in The Great Abramoff Shitstorm of '06 as they can, Republicans and their media sockpuppets have been endlessly repeating the lie that "Democrats took 'Abramoff-linked' money, too!"
But -- here's the thing: No Democrat has taken a penny of money from Abramoff. For years, officeholders of both parties have taken donations from Indian tribes, some of whom, for a time, hired (and were ripped off by) Abramoff as their agent.
Now, how to explain the real situation (as opposed to the conflated Republican lie) to a sports-obsessed public?
Here's one way:
Leigh Steinberg is a prominent sports agent, who has represented, for example, Troy Aikman (Dallas Cowboys), Steve Young (San Francisco 49ers), Ricky Williams (Miami Dolphins), Mark Brunell (Washington Redskins), Ben Roethlisberger (Pittsburgh Steelers) and Heavyweight Champion Lennox Lewis.
Let's say each of these athletes has donated money to various charities over the years.
Let's say, as well, that some government agency investigates Steinberg, and finds that he's "dirty" as hell -- and has swindled each of the above athletes, as well as others.
Now, about that money that those Steinberg-represented athletes donated to charities -- is it "Leigh-Steinberg-linked" money?
That's EXACTLY the scenario the GOP wants us to swallow, when it comes to Abramoff and Democrats . . .
Retreato On Scalito?
If the Democrats have an actual plan to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, it's the best-kept secret since D-Day.
Indeed, other than a single article indicating that Joementum (of all people) "hasn't ruled it out," there's been radio silence on the issue.
Putting aside his shucking and jiving on whether he'd vote to reverse Roe v. Wade (and how he'd rule on every other hot-button issue), it's not like he hasn't offered three different explanations about his ruling in cases in violation of his express promise to recuse himself where: (a) his sister's law firm represented a party; and (b) he held stock in one of the corporate parties. It's not like his explanation why he joined the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) -- a fretful rearguard organization dedicated to keeping women and minorities out of the university even absent affirmative action and where they could prove demonstrably better grades and higher test scores than white males -- made no sense.
Indeed, his entire career indicates a fawning willingness to suck up to power. Right now, what the country needs is a judicial candidate with the stones to stand up to the most aggressive, unchecked Executive power grab in history. Sam Alito is not that candidate.
But will the Democrats risk the anger of the GOP -- and possibly the latter's exercise of the "nuclear option?" If they won't filibuster this extremist perjurer, isn't their "right" to filibuster gone already?
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Plus ça change . . .
This is from The National Lampoon Radio Hour -- a radio skit first broadcast December 29, 1973, featuring the voice of Chevy Chase, entitled "Mission: Impeachable":"Good morning, Mr. Hunt. Several high-ranking members of the Democratic Party are attempting to seize control of the government of the United States by legitimate means. They plan to use the free press, open discussion of the issues, and the universal franchise, in an all-out effort to win the Presidency.1 In reality, it only lasted half that long -- another eight months. Good call, though.
"Should they succeed, all our efforts to repeal the Bill of Rights, pack the Supreme Court with rightwing morons, intimidate the media, suppress dissent, halt social progress, promote big business, and crush the Congress, will be destroyed.
"Your mission, E, should you choose to accept it, is to stop these men once and for all, by insuring that the weakest of them, Senator George McGovern, wins the nomination and then, sabotaging his campaign by any possible means.
"You will have at your disposal electronic bugging equipment, burglary tools, wigs, voice-alteration devices, a camera disguised as a tobacco pouch, forged documents, a safe house, five hundred loyal but clumsy Cubans, and two million dollars in one-hundred-dollar bills.
"As always, if any member of your CIA force is caught or killed, the President will disavow any knowledge of your activities.
"This administration will self-destruct in sixteen months.1 Good luck, Howie."
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Deficit Donations?
Maybe this is the "new accounting," that they're using in Bushco (and that has brought them so much success with the federal budget), but can somebody explain to me how Abramoff's Indian tribe clients donated $1.4 million to politicians of both parties, and Abramoff and his associate Michael Scanlon billed those same tribes $80 million, yet there were "Abramoff-linked" funds left over at the tribes' disposal to pay to politicians?
"It's a miracle! Like the loaves and fishes!"
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Penumbras Radiating From The Sun King
I must point out that Glenn Greenwald has been subbing for Digby over at Hullabaloo, and doing a yeoman's job utterly demolishing the specious arguments being put forward by Bush to justify his violations of federal (FISA) wiretap laws. Suffice it to say that Bush's defense requires one to follow the most contortionist meanderings of legal logic imaginable, and a "kingly" interpretation of expansive executive power nowhere to be found in the language of the Constitution itself:The Administration’s previous view of this matter is, of course, the precise opposite of its position now. The Administration now seeks to claim that the Congress -- when it enacted its 2001 resolution authorizing the use of military force in Afghanistan and against al Qaeda -- somehow intended with that Resolution to amend FISA and thereby silently and "impliedly" gave the Administration the right to engage in exactly the secret, warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens which FISA makes it a criminal offense to engage in.Yep, that's right. The "strict constructionist" crowd is now telling us that Congress "impliedly" and "silently" granted the President powers to break the very laws that the Congress "expressly" and "publicly" enacted -- the same laws the Congress now "specifically" and "vociferously" maintains were never changed.
What we really have from these paragons of Judicial Restraint trying to defend George Bush is everything except plain language and original intent – the very tools of construction which these "conservatives," when not concocting legal defenses for the President, claim that they believe in. That’s because the plain language of the law is crystal clear ("A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally— (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute") and leaves no doubt that George Bush broke it.
One immediate outcome of this debate, I predict: Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court is toast. Remember, you read it here first.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Uh -- what Ezra Klein said:He Ain't The Law
Partisan Republicans would have you believe that the legal contention in this issue is over whether or not FISA was constitutional. If it is, what Bush did was illegal. If it isn't, one could make the argument. They argue the latter.
But here's the thing: FISA, currently, is the law. And it's not an incidental law with language that accidentally enlarges it to apply to this case. Congress passed it specifically to constrain executive authority over surveillance matter. Specifically to outlaw, well, this.
When Congress passes a law that certain groups think to be unconstitutional, there's a procedure worked out for pursuing resolution. It involves a handful of old dudes and a couple old women who wear long robes and issue complex legal opinions on constitutional matters. And until they rule one way or the other (or pass an injunction), the controversial legislation remains legally binding. That's why a member of NORML can't walk down the street smoking a spliff and a wingnut mayor in Mississippi can't prosecute women who have abortions. Laws are in effect until they are repealed or declared invalid by the Supreme Court. Whatever you think of FISA's legality, it was neither repealed nor declared invalid by the Supreme Court. It was in effect.
Bush's actions were illegal. And that's all there is to that. You can argue that they were justified, or righteous, or that the legislative structure is outmoded and wrong, but none of that changes the fact that they were in flagrant violation of the law of the land, a law the White House could have attempted to amend or asked the Supreme Court to invalidate. Which means that not only were Bush's actions illegal, but he offered no attempt to make them legal.
One more thing: Under the relaxed requirements of the FISA statute, the President is authorized to immediately begin wiretaps upon a congressional declaration of war, and given 15 days to continue such wiretaps before even being required to request a warrant for doing so from the FISA Court.
Why that 15-day, warrantless "grace" period, you ask? According to the congressional Conference Report issued at the time FISA was passed, "The Conferees intend that this [fifteen-day] period will allow time for consideration of any amendment to this act that may be appropriate during a wartime emergency. The conferees expect that such amendment would be reported with recommendations within 7 days and that each House would vote on the amendment within 7 days thereafter." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1720, at 34 (1978).
This wasn't just Bush "ignoring" Congress. This was a gigantic, blatant "Fuck you!" from Bush to the Congress. Let's see what (if anything) this Congress will do about it.
