Multi Medium

If You’ve Got Nothing To Hide…

Google’s Eric Schmidt thinks online anonymity is too “dangerous” to be allowed:

Speaking on a panel at the event, Schmidt argued that anonymity on the Internet is dangerous. “In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you,” he said.

Schmidt took the stance that governments may eventually put an end to anonymity. “We need a [verified] name service for people,” he said. “Governments will demand it.”

He expanded on his thoughts in a separate interview.

(…)

“[I]f you are trying to commit a terrible, evil crime, it’s not obvious that you should be able to do so with complete anonymity. There are no systems in our society which allow you to do that. Judges insist on unmasking who the perpetrator was. So absolute anonymity could lead to some very difficult decisions for our governments and our society as a whole and I don’t think we want that either.”

This sounds an awful lot like arguing that the police should have everyone’s DNA and fingerprints on file because we’re all potential criminals.

Add comment August 11th, 2010 at 07:20am Posted by Eli

The New Patriotism

Whatever happened to “America, love it OR leave it”?

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s suggestion in April 2009 that his state might consider secession drew a round of mockery nationwide, but his blustery populist rhetoric earned him serious traction among GOP primary voters in his re-election fight against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

(…)

Rep. Zach Wamp, one of three candidates seeking the GOP gubernatorial nomination in Tennessee, told Hotline OnCall that Perry had the right idea. Wamp argued that mandates forced on the states by the Obama administration’s health care bill have put secession on the table.

“I hope that the American people will go to the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 so that states are not forced to consider separation from this government,” Wamp told Hotline OnCall Friday.

Wamp said he hopes voters send a message in November that the federal government should “strictly adhere” to the Constitution.

“Patriots like Rick Perry have talked about these issues because the federal government is putting us in an untenable position at the state level,” he told OnCall.

This is a very interesting definition of “patriot” that I have never seen before, but I assume that it simply means that Perry and Wamp’s loyalty is to the real America, not the United States with its oppressive Constitution and liberals and whatnot.  Fine, whatever.  But I sure as hell don’t want to hear any more conservatives making fun of Alec Baldwin for threatening to leave the country during the Bush administration, understood?

Add comment July 24th, 2010 at 04:24pm Posted by Eli

Why Do We Need The Onion?

The Onion:

Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

“Our very way of life is under siege,” said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. “It’s time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are.”

(…)

Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance “since the Ten Commandments.”

(…)

“The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes,” Mortensen said. “In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life.”

NPR:

Along with the “Don’t tread on me” flags and the George Washington impersonators, the Constitution is ubiquitous at Tea Party events, whether it’s reproductions of the original parchment or pocket-sized copies.

Karen Cole says she carries a copy in her purse. “The Democrats are eviscerating our Constitution,” she says. Her friend Betty Anne Olsen agrees. “This current administration is trashing our Constitution; they couldn’t care less about the values. They’re breaking the laws.”

And how does she know that?

“I do not study the Constitution, no, but I’m well aware of my history,” Olsen says. “I’m well aware of how this country was founded, and I’m well aware of what has happened to it in current years.”

Tea Party members are often vague about exactly how their constitutional rights are being denied. But they all believe the federal government has expanded far beyond what the Constitution intended.

Parody is dead.

Add comment July 15th, 2010 at 11:47am Posted by Eli

Sooo Not Helping

Sharron Angle attempts to “clarify” her insane statements, and only ends up making herself sound even more stupid and crazy:

In her first major interview since winning the Nevada Senate primary, Republican nominee Sharron Angle backed away from some of her previous comments, including how “people are really looking towards those Second Amendment remedies” to “take Harry Reid out.”

“I was speaking broadly, as you saw, about the Constitution, and that was the context of that rhetoric,” Angle said of her provocative comments concerning the Senate majority leader, which she made on a conservative radio show in January. “I admit that was a little strong to say, ‘take him out.’ I meant to say ‘take him out of office,’ and taking him out of office is a little different.”

Ah yes, of course, she must have been talking about forcing Reid from office at gunpoint instead of killing him.  Well, that’s much better.

This is my personal favorite:

Ralston pressed Angle on her comments to the state Assembly in 1995 that the “tenet of the separation of church and state is an unconstitutional doctrine.” When Ralston insisted that the separation of church and state is indeed in the Constitution, Angle disagreed.

“No it doesn’t, Jon. No it doesn’t,” Angle said. “Actually, Thomas Jefferson has been misquoted like I’ve been misquoted out of context.”

Yes, apparently the First Amendment has been misquoted out of context.  Because no one’s ever read the entire Constitution, I guess.  I wonder if the Second Amendment’s been misquoted too.

This is pretty great too:

In the Ralston interview, Angle reiterated her position as an abortion opponent but cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, the famous 1973 court case that made abortion legal, as her reason why government should play a role in setting restrictions.

“I always say that I value life, my position has always been that government should stay out of this matter,” Angle said. “But in 1973, they chose to get involved in this.”

So… government should stay out of abortion… by banning it?  Fascinating.

As Blue Texan says, Harry Reid is very, very lucky.  Perhaps Angle’s primary victory actually reflects Republican awareness that they’re much better off with Reid as Majority Leader…

1 comment July 1st, 2010 at 07:21am Posted by Eli

Lamest First Amendment Argument Ever

You have got to be kidding me…

Arizona voters approved the creation of Clean Elections in 1998. Participating candidates collect a certain number of $5 donations and agree not to accept money from special-interest groups in exchange for a lump sum of public money to fund their campaigns. Candidates can get additional public funds if an opponent running as a traditional candidate spends more money than the Clean Elections candidate received initially.

Those matching funds are the focus of a lawsuit filed in 2008 by the Goldwater Institute on behalf of several Republican candidates, including state Treasurer Dean Martin, Sen. Bob Burns of Peoria, Rep. John McComish of Phoenix and Rep. Nancy McLain of Bullhead City. The traditional candidates argued that they limited their own campaign spending to avoid triggering additional public contributions to Clean Elections opponents, chilling their own freedom of speech.

U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver agreed, issuing a ruling in January that matching funds violate First Amendment freedom of speech because they cause non-participating candidates to limit their campaigning, fundraising and spending.

Clean Elections supporters appealed. In February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed to allow the Citizens Clean Elections Commission to continue matching funds for participating candidates until the court could rule. That same month, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request that matching funds be halted.

So it should be okay to outspend your opponent so copiously as to drown them out, but not okay for them to receive public campaign financing so they can keep up with you?  Admittedly, I am not a lawyer, but I can’t believe a judge actually ruled favorably on such a transparently bullshit argument.  There is literally nothing preventing these candidates from spending more money other than the desire to prevent their opponents from receiving more money.  That’s a far cry from actual suppression of free speech.

Add comment April 12th, 2010 at 07:19am Posted by Eli

The Charade Is Finally Over

After twisting in the wind for over a year with zero support from Obama, Dawn Johnsen has finally had enough:

Dawn Johnsen, the president’s appointment to the Office of Legal Counsel whose nomination has lingered in Congressional limbo for more than a year, has officially withdrawn her candidacy for the post, according to a statement sent over from the White House.

“I am deeply honored that President Obama, the Attorney General and a strong majority of the U.S. Senate have demonstrated faith and confidence in my ability to lead the Office of Legal Counsel,” Johnsen said in a statement asking for the withdrawal. “OLC plays a critical role in upholding the rule of law and must provide advice unvarnished by politics or partisan ambition. That was my guiding principle when I had the privilege to lead OLC in a past administration. Restoring OLC to its best nonpartisan traditions was my primary objective for my anticipated service in this administration. Unfortunately, my nomination has met with lengthy delays and political opposition that threaten that objective and prevent OLC from functioning at full strength. I hope that the withdrawal of my nomination will allow this important office to be filled promptly.”

I’m kinda reading her statement as “I will not be used as Obama’s excuse for blowing off the Constitution any more.  Enough is enough.”  Of course, she’s assuming that Obama won’t simply say that this proves that he can’t get anyone “controversial” confirmed, and nominate some sleazy Alberto Gonzales-style enabler.

Add comment April 9th, 2010 at 08:29pm Posted by Eli

Now I Understand Why Berkeley Wants To Hang Onto Yoo

…Because he holds them in such high esteem:

“I think of myself as being West Berlin during the Cold War, a shining beacon of capitalism and democracy surrounded by a sea of Marxism,” Yoo observes, sipping iced tea in the faculty club lounge, a wan smile registering the discomfort of colleagues walking by en route to the bar.

He sees his neighbors as the human figures of “a natural history museum of the 1960s,” the Telegraph Avenue tableau of a graying, long-haired, pot-smoking counterculture stuck in the ideology’s half-century-old heyday.

“It’s like looking at the panoramic displays of troglodytes sitting around the campfire with their clubs. Here, it’s tie-dye and marijuana. It’s just like the 1960s, with the Vietnam War still to protest.”

(…)

Yoo seems at peace living in Berkeley, even though he disparages the community as an enclave of self-satisfied extremists intolerant of those who think outside the liberal mind-set.

“But that doesn’t mean I don’t like it here,” he says.

Don’t let him get away, Berkeley!  He’s quite a prize.  I particularly enjoy the idea of a loyal Bushie and professional torture apologist describing other people as intolerant self-satisfied extremists.

Add comment March 29th, 2010 at 07:18pm Posted by Eli

Can’t Vs. Won’t

Much like healthcare reform and the public option, Obama’s slate of recess appointments once again show us that his failures are not the result of Republican obstruction, or even craven weakness in the face of Republican obstruction.  They are, in fact, deliberate choices.

Congratulations to Craig Becker, who has finally gotten his recess appointment to serve on the National Labor Relations Board. As well as 14 other people who were similarly recess appointed today.

Not on that list?

Dawn Johnsen.

Also per emptywheel, the White House’s “explanation” for the omission (”we didn’t appoint her because we didn’t appoint her; maybe we’ll appoint her later, it’s all the Republicans’ fault”) is not an explanation at all, especially when you consider that OLC is kind of an important office to be leaving vacant, and Johnsen has been waiting well over a year at this point:

Of the 77 people on the calendar, we are only recess appointing 15 and there are a number of qualified individuals the President has nominated that do not fall in this group.  If the Republicans do not end their campaign of obstruction, the President reserves the option of exerting his authority to recess appoint qualified individuals in the future, but our hope is that we can move beyond the partisan politics that have held up the process for the last fifteen months for the good of the American people.

Labor got Becker because they were in line for a reward for backing Obama’s godawful public-optionless healthcare reform bill, but the Constitution and the Office of Legal Counsel have no constituency – or at least not one that can deliver dollars or votes, and certainly not one that Obama gives a damn about.  Just like the public option.

Add comment March 28th, 2010 at 02:25pm Posted by Eli

SWOT: The Selective War On Terror

Isn’t it amazing how Republicans and conservatives can be so fanatically gung ho about “confronting” Islamic terrorism, to the point where they’re willing to tear up the Constitution and justify any and all manner of illegal surveillance, torture and imprisonment, yet so utterly blase about right-wing vandalism, threats, and intimidation, even up to outright violence and murder?  Or how they still oppose any efforts to make it harder to obtain guns?  Or how they mock Democrats who suggest that it’s important to understand the source of Islamic rage, but make sure to tell us that while right-wing terrorists’ actions may be misguided, the sources of their rage are entirely legitimate?

Isn’t it amazing how the same people who were so willing to tear up the Constitution and create a police state to fight that very specific kind of terrorism are so worked up about how Obama is supposedly a fascist who is trampling the Constitution with his ruthless power grabs and healthcare bill?

Isn’t it amazing how the same people who decried Democrats’ and progressives’ lack of civility are silent about right-wing slurs and threats against Democratic officeholders?  That they made a hero of the congressman who yelled “You lie!” in the middle of Obama’s State Of The Union address (and I will be shocked if the “baby killer” guy does not become one in short order as well)?  That they had no problem at all with Dick Cheney telling a Democratic senator to go fuck himself (or shooting a guy  in the face with a shotgun, for that matter)?

I dunno, maybe I’m just easily amazed.

Add comment March 25th, 2010 at 11:08am Posted by Eli

A Modest Proposal On Campaign Finance Reform

Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres have a suggestion on how to (mostly) get around the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision:

While Congress can’t issue a broad ban on all companies, it can target the very large class that does business with the federal government and ban those companies from “endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office.”

A 2008 Government Accountability Office study found that almost three-quarters of the largest 100 publicly traded firms are federal contractors. If Congress endorsed our proposal, these companies — and tens of thousands of others — would face a stark choice: They could endorse candidates or do business with the government, but they couldn’t do both. When push came to shove, it’s likely that very few would be willing to pay such a high price for their “free speech.”

The Roberts court is skeptical — to put it mildly — of campaign finance restrictions. But it is still highly unlikely that the justices would strike down a law targeting federal contractors. All nine recognize that Congress may restrict free speech when there is a significant risk of corruption. That risk is obvious when corporate speakers are simultaneously doing business with the government.

(…)

Our proposal requires only a modest extension of existing law. Federal contractors already are not allowed to “directly or indirectly . . . make any contribution of money or other things of value” to “any political party, committee, or candidate.” This provision arguably bars Big Pharma from launching a media campaign in favor of a candidate who supports its special deals, thereby “indirectly providing” the candidate something “of value.” But it doesn’t cover the case in which contractors threaten to spend millions to oppose senators and representatives who refuse their excessive demands. There is a need, then, for a new statutory initiative: The same anti-corruption rationale that may prohibit contractors from spending millions in favor of candidates requires a statutory prohibition on a negative advertising blitz.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but this sounds pretty reasonable to me.  Of course, constitutional or not, our corporate-owned Congress still has to pass it.

1 comment January 27th, 2010 at 11:26am Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Spin

Newt Gingrich explains that the Citizens United ruling is a huge win for ordinary citizens because rich people and corporations will give you millions of dollars of campaign support to oppose them. Fascinating.

BLOCK: You’re saying that this ruling affects the average citizen expressing his or her voice, as opposed to corporations being allowed to spend freely.

Mr. GINGRICH: Im saying that it allows you to have a middle-class candidate go out and find allies and supporters who are able to help them match the rich. And able to help them match the incumbent. Remember, incumbents run with millions of dollars in congressional staff, congressional franking, congressional travel. And they have all the advantages of being able to issue statements from their incumbent office. And the challenger – the person out there who’s the citizen who’s rebelling, who wants to change things – is at an enormous disadvantage in taking on incumbents.

This will, in fact, level the playing field and allow middle-class candidates to begin to have an opportunity to raise the resources to take on the powerful and the rich.

Is there a Hall Of Fame for spin?

Add comment January 23rd, 2010 at 01:26pm Posted by Eli

Wankers Of The Day

The cable industry:

This Wednesday, the cable industry’s head lobbyist gave a speech claiming that Net Neutrality would violate the First Amendment. According to the NCTA’s Kyle McSlarrow, cable companies have free speech rights, while Americans (like you) don’t have rights to access or upload content on the Internet.

And Net Neutrality — a rule that would protect Internet users from cable and phone efforts to censor you online or to discriminate against your favorite Web sites — would abridge the speech rights of phone and cable companies.

Just repeating his argument shows how silly — and offensive — it is. McSlarrow specifically said that cable companies would “speak” by offering priority-treatment to some Web sites that pay cable companies more, at the expense of other sites that don’t pay them. Really. (It’s amazing what a 2-million-dollar lobbying salary will do to a man’s reason.)

He also said two things that directly contradicted one another (nothing new for phone and cable reps). He said (1) Net Neutrality is unnecessary because cable companies would not affect Internet traffic, let alone block it; and (2) Net Neutrality is “forced speech,” because it forces cable companies to carry speech they would, in fact, otherwise block or affect.

So… in other words, Net Neutrality would infringe on the cable companies’ First Amendment right to suppress speech.  Wow.

Add comment December 11th, 2009 at 12:22pm Posted by Eli

Richard Cohen Serves Self Up A Softball, Whiffs Anyway

Because I try not to read him because he makes my brain sad, sometimes I forgot just how stupid and obtuse Richard Cohen is.  In yesterday’s column, he manages to come up with a very valid thesis (Obama has lost his moral clarity and betrayed the ideals he professed on the campaign trail) and then does an incredibly awful job of backing it up:

Somehow, though, that moral clarity has dissipated. The Obama who was leading a movement of professed political purity is the very same person who as president would not meet with the Dalai Lama, lest he annoy the very sensitive Chinese. He is the same man who bowed to the emperor of Japan when, in my estimation, the president of the United States should bow to no man. He is the same president who in China played the mannequin for the Chinese government, appearing at stage-managed news conferences and events — and having his remarks sometimes censored. When I saw him in that picture alone on the Great Wall, he seemed to be thinking, “What the hell am I doing here?” If so, it was a good question.

The Barack Obama of that Philadelphia speech would not have let his attorney general, Eric Holder, announce the new policy for trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other Sept. 11 defendants in criminal court, as if this were a mere departmental issue and not one of momentous policy. And the Barack Obama of the speech would have enunciated a principle of law and not an ad hoc system in which some alleged terrorists are tried in civilian courts and some before military tribunals. What is the principle in that: What works, works? Try putting that one on the Liberty Bell.

Of course, there’s a difference between campaigning and governing. There is no reality to campaigning. You want Guantanamo closed, you say you’ll close it. You want to close it as president, and all of a sudden it becomes a political crisis that costs you your White House counsel, an experienced and principled man named Gregory Craig. Governing is hard.

Okay, he’s right about the Dalai Lama and Gitmo, but The Bow? (It’s a sign of respect not submission, you pinhead)  Getting China on board with reducing carbon emissions?  Trying KSM in a civilian court?  These are supposed examples of Obama losing his moral clarity?  How about his continuation of Bush’s policies of secrecy and executive power?  His doubling down on Afghanistan?  His unconcern for the public option?  His serial betrayals of the gay community?

It’s a pretty easy case to make, and Cohen still can’t do it effectively.  Why a major American newspaper would pay him to write this inept drivel, I have no idea.

Add comment November 25th, 2009 at 07:16am Posted by Eli

What’s The Opposite Of Defamation?

And can you really sue for it?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a civil complaint on Monday against members of a liberal activist group who staged a news conference to falsely announce that the 3 million-member business federation had reversed its stance on climate change legislation.

(…)

As part of its hoax on Oct. 19, Yes Men announced at the National Press Club that the chamber would stop lobbying against the Senate’s 800-page climate bill. Reuters moved a story based on the false press release, and both CNBC and Fox Business Network reported it – with the anchors correcting themselves mid-story upon learning it was false.

I know, the lawsuit is more about trademark violation, but I think it’s hilarious and a little surreal that the Chamber is suing the Yes Men for trying to make them look like they weren’t complete amoral assholes for one day.

Add comment October 27th, 2009 at 09:35pm Posted by Eli

That’s Not A Ham Sandwich!

Here’s a creative workaround to the statute of limitations…

Nearly 10 years had passed since a college student was raped on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and with no known suspect in the 1993 case, the police were not close to an arrest. But what they did have was nearly as critical: the rapist’s DNA profile.

Prosecutors in Manhattan — aware that the legal clock for bringing a case was running out — devised the novel strategy of indicting the rapist’s DNA. Four years later, the sample was connected to a man, Victor Rondon; he was eventually convicted and sentenced to 44 to 107 years in prison.

While there have been many celebrated cases in which DNA evidence has been used to overturn wrongful convictions, often many years after the trial, such evidence has become essential in solving cold cases.

In New York City, prosecutors have secured 117 indictments of DNA samples in rape cases, linked 18 of those profiles to specific people, and obtained 13 convictions, either through trials or negotiated pleas. Five cases are pending.

“What we said was, ‘There is no reason for people to get away with rape because of the statute of limitations,’ ” said John Feinblatt, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s criminal justice coordinator. “They shouldn’t be able to hide behind it; they shouldn’t be able to race for time and get over the finish line and leave a victim without a case being solved.”

Sounds good to me.  I’m not a big fan of the statute of limitations concept – if there are extenuating circumstances like hazy witness memory or the suspect’s subsequent upstandingness, then bring them up during trial.

Add comment October 19th, 2009 at 07:25pm Posted by Eli

Great Moments In American History

It’s a shame, but these things happen.

(From Married To The Sea)

Add comment October 8th, 2009 at 11:16am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Month

Shorter Broderella: Rule of law is too partisan.

First, let me stipulate that I agree on the importance of accountability for illegal acts and for serious breaches of trust by government officials — even at the highest levels. I had no problem with the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, and I called for Bill Clinton to resign when he lied to his Cabinet colleagues and to the country during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

(…)

I am not persuaded by former vice president Dick Cheney’s argument that this is simply political revenge by the now-dominant Democrats against their Republican predecessors. For all the previously stated reasons, there is ample justification for seeking answers apart from any partisan motive.

Nonetheless, I think it is a matter of regret that Holder asked prosecutor John H. Durham to review the cases of the agents accused of abusive tactics toward some captives.

I realize this is a preliminary investigation, not a decision to prosecute anyone. And if it were to stop at that point, no great harm would have been done. But it is the first step on a legal trail that could lead to trials — and that is what gives me pause.

Cheney is not wrong when he asserts that it is a dangerous precedent when a change in power in Washington leads a successor government not just to change the policies of its predecessors but to invoke the criminal justice system against them.

Not investigating or prosecuting war crimes is kind of a dangerous precedent, too…

Looming beyond the publicized cases of these relatively low-level operatives is the fundamental accountability question: What about those who approved of their actions? If accountability is the standard, then it should apply to the policymakers and not just to the underlings. Ultimately, do we want to see Cheney, who backed these actions and still does, standing in the dock?

Well yes.

In times like these, the understandable desire to enforce individual accountability must be weighed against the consequences. This country is facing so many huge challenges at home and abroad that the president cannot afford to be drawn into what would undoubtedly be a major, bitter partisan battle over prosecution of Bush-era officials. The cost to the country would simply be too great.

Accountability is just too hard and it’ll make the Republicans upset, so why bother.  Now, a witch hunt against a Democratic president for getting a blow job, that’s okay.

When President Ford pardoned Nixon in 1974, I wrote one of the few columns endorsing his decision, which was made on the basis that it was more important for America to focus on the task of changing the way it would be governed and addressing the current problems. It took a full generation for the decision to be recognized by the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and others as the act of courage that it had been.

Awesome.  Can you imagine what kind of mess this country would be in if Nixon had been held accountable instead of getting off scot free and allowed to rehabilitate his image as a statesman?  Why, it might even have discredited anyone who worked in his administration, and I don’t know if our country could afford such a terrible loss.

Add comment September 3rd, 2009 at 07:21am Posted by Eli

Jerry Nadler Also Speaks For Me

…By stating the bloody obvious:

Former Vice President Cheney is essentially saying that any acts performed by members of the CIA – no matter how illegal or abhorrent – are ok, and must never be the subject of a criminal investigation. No matter what anyone in the CIA may do, it need not be subject to the law. This is outrageous, and violates just about every traditional American concept of liberty and justice.

It is remarkable that this even needed to be said. And depressing that it is seen as some kind of leftist fringe position.

Add comment August 31st, 2009 at 11:05pm Posted by Eli

When America Does It, It’s Not Illegal

Shorter Cheney: Laws are for the weak.

A CIA inspector general’s report released Monday documented how interrogators menaced “high-value” detainees with a gun and a power drill, threatened their families and used other methods that went beyond even the permissive interrogation rules set by the Bush administration Justice Department.

Cheney, who strongly opposes the Obama administration’s new probe into alleged detainee abuse, was asked in the Fox News interview whether he was “OK” with interrogations that went beyond Justice’s specific legal authorization.

“I am,” the former vice president replied.

“My sort of overwhelming view is that the enhanced interrogation techniques were absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives and preventing further attacks,” he said. “It was good policy. It was properly carried out. It worked very, very well.”

In other words, the ends justify the means, even when the means have nothing to do with achieving them.

Add comment August 29th, 2009 at 12:55pm Posted by Eli

Oh My God, They Killed Irony! You Bastards!

Between teabaggers lamenting the infringement of their 1st Amendment rights and conservatives in general talking up Obama’s fascist police state, it seems like irony gets killed every single day.  Today’s executioner is Paul Broun:

The Athens Banner-Herald reports today that Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) told constituents yesterday that he thinks Democratic leaders are planning to declare martial law:

He also spoke of a “socialistic elite” – Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – who might use a pandemic disease or natural disaster as an excuse to declare martial law.

“They’re trying to develop an environment where they can take over,” he said. “We’ve seen that historically.”

The right’s newfound concern for the Constitution and civil liberties is admirable, but several years too late.

Add comment August 12th, 2009 at 09:54pm Posted by Eli

Judicial Activism = Absence Of Conservative Judicial Activism

That’s really the only consistent definition that I can see in the Republicans’ usage of the term.  John McCain is the latest offender:

One day after he warned that Republicans have a “very, very deep hole that we’ve got to come out of” with Latino voters, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) announced that he would oppose the first Latina nominated to the nation’s highest court. Moreover, in his statement opposing Judge Sonia Sotomayor, McCain misrepresents his own record on judges:

Again and again, Judge Sotomayor seeks to amend the law to fit the circumstances of the case, thereby substituting herself in the role of a legislator. … To protect the equal, but separate roles of all three branches of government, I cannot support activist judges that seek to legislate from the bench. I have not supported such nominees in the past, and I cannot support such a nominee to the highest court in the land.

Despite his claim that he has never supported a judge who “seeks to amend the law to fit the circumstances of the case,” McCain voted in favor of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito; and he described both Roberts and Alito as “model judges” during the 2008 campaign….

[Insert Roberts, Alito, and Thomas' greatest hits here]

As a Yale Law School study published before Roberts and Alito joined the Supreme Court determined, Justice Thomas is the one justice who is most likely to vote to invalidate an Act of Congress — doing so a massive 65.63% of the time. The Court’s two Clinton appointees, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, are the least likely to second-guess Congress.  So McCain has no problem with judges who “substitute [them]self in the role of a legislator;” he’s just upset that Sotomayor won’t push the same right-wing agenda as his favorite justices.

“Judicial activism” is transparently dishonest garbage, but I predict that Republicans will continue using it as an excuse to vote against moderate and progressive judges until roughly the end of time.

Add comment August 3rd, 2009 at 07:36pm Posted by Eli

Cargo Cult Democracy

There was a great letter in yesterday’s NYT, lamenting just how far American democracy has fallen:

Six moderate/conservative senators from the smallest states will dictate the terms of health care reform, or whether there will be reform, to the rest of the American populace.

These senators oppose single-payer, even a public option, and are obsessed with the “cost” argument. Polls, however, consistently indicate that an overwhelming majority of Americans want either single-payer or a public option and are not so concerned with the cost if health care is delivered.

An even larger majority wants major, fundamental health care reform.

We tout our “democracy” throughout the world, and at every election cycle its praises are sung, yet a handful of senators acting outside the mainstream, apparently in line with their small constituencies, can thwart the will of the vast majority of Americans, denying in the process, or limiting, a fundamental right of all: a healthy life.

The only part of that last paragraph that I would quibble with is the assumption that these six senators’ rural constituencies are as stubbornly opposed to the public option as they are.

But I’m more interested in the larger point: We brag about how great our democracy is, we use it as an excuse to do whatever we want overseas because it’s in the service of our fantastic democracy and sharing its wonders with the rest of the world, but the truth is that we are a democracy in name only.  Like the Pacific cargo cultists, we build the structures and follow the routines of democracy, but the actual democracy is long gone.

We hold free and fair elections, wherein we vote for the candidates who spend the most money and package themselves in the most compelling way and get the most flattering media coverage, with substantive policy hardly a factor at all.  Or we vote for the candidate whose district has been gerrymandered to ensure that the same party wins all the time, no matter how badly it performs.  Or our votes are nullified by dodgy electronic voting machines or suppressed through fraud and  intimidation.

We elect presidents and congressmen to represent our interests, who instead do the bidding of the corporations who gave them the money to buy our votes.

We have a code of laws and a brilliant, enduring Constitution, but our presidents and judges ignore and distort them when it suits their purposes.  And if the president gets caught, Congress just ignores it, flails impotently, or makes it retroactively legal.

That’s not democracy; we’re just going through the motions.  Real democracy would mean real accountability, which would mean a lot less security for those in power.  But as long as we have a political system which ignores the masses and rewards selfishness and amorality in the ruling elite, it’s hard to see where reform is going to come from.  It’s a catch-22, really – the system is designed to produce a neverending supply of exactly the kind of politicians who will fight to the death to preserve it.

Add comment August 1st, 2009 at 02:28pm Posted by Eli

What. I’ve. Been. Saying. (Again)

Almost four years ago, I observed that “Bush’s claim that he had to take extraordinary measures to fight terror is at odds with his resolute unwillingness to take ordinary measures against terror.”  Apparently the intel inspectors general agree with me:

We’ve known for years that the Bush administration ignored and broke the law repeatedly in the name of national security. It is now clear that many of those programs could have been conducted just as easily within the law — perhaps more effectively and certainly with far less damage to the justice system and to Americans’ faith in their government.

That is the inescapable conclusion from a devastating report by the inspectors general of the intelligence and law-enforcement community on President George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program. The report shows that the longstanding requirement that the government obtain a warrant was not hindering efforts to gather intelligence on terrorists after the 9/11 attacks. In fact, the argument that the law was an impediment was concocted by White House and Justice Department lawyers after Mr. Bush authorized spying on Americans’ international communications.

(…)

So why break the law, again and again? Two things seem disturbingly clear. First, President Bush and his top aides panicked after the Sept. 11 attacks. And second, Mr. Cheney and his ideologues, who had long chafed at any legal constraints on executive power, preyed on that panic to advance their agenda.

It is absolutely criminal that these people are not being treated as criminals.

Add comment July 17th, 2009 at 09:35am Posted by Eli

Legal Fail

Okay, I am admittedly not a law-talking expert, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work this way…

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, asked if she would recuse herself from future gun control cases because she ruled in the past that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment does not apply to state gun control laws.

Can anyone see where justices recusing themselves from cases involving issues where they had previously ruled might potentially cause some problems?

Add comment July 17th, 2009 at 08:12am Posted by Eli

People Unclear On The Concept

John McCain and David Gregory:

MR. GREGORY:  Should there be an investigation, do you think?

SEN. McCAIN:  I don’t know if–first of all, I’d like to know the facts of the case before there should be an, “an investigation.”

MR. GREGORY:  Mm-hmm.

Um.

Add comment July 14th, 2009 at 10:05am Posted by Eli

The Most Important Legislation EVAR!

According to Joe Lieberman and his BFF Lindsey Graham, there is no higher legislative priority than ensuring that photographic evidence of war crimes never sees the light of day.

It is so heartwarming to see someone standing up for the torturers.  Truly, they are an inspiration to us all.

Add comment June 9th, 2009 at 09:18pm Posted by Eli

Not The Ethical Reprimand!

Liz Cheney helpfully explains that it’s not torture that’s the real crime, it’s calling torture torture that’s the real crime:

I hear an awful lot of people out there throwing words around like “torture” and “lines being crossed,” and i think it’s a really, you know, it’s…  it’s irresponsible and frankly it’s libelous because you have got brave Americans, men and women, who were involved in this program at the C.I.A who were involved in making sure that the program didn’t cross any lines at the Justice Department.  Those people were responsible for saving American lives and keeping us safe.  And I think it is offensive for all Americans for this White House to suggest that somehow those actions deserve prosecution or… or… ya-know some sort of ya-know ethical reprimand.

An ethical reprimand?  Good heavens, what kind of inhuman monster does she think Obama is?  First it’s ethical reprimands, and then the next thing you know it’ll be sternly worded letters.  The very fabric of this country could unravel in the face of such extreme sanctions!

Add comment May 29th, 2009 at 11:24am Posted by Eli

A Tincture Of Hypocrisy

No Republican who was not calling for Bush’s resignation or impeachment over the last three years of his term has any right to say this:

The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness.

George Will is kidding, right?  Please tell me he’s kidding and didn’t just rediscover his hunger for “constitutional values” and the rule of law when Obama put his hand on Abe Lincoln’s Bible.

Add comment May 14th, 2009 at 11:34pm Posted by Eli

A Modest Proposal

So, as I understand it, the Voting Rights Act may be in trouble:

[T]he Voting Rights Act… among other things, requires a federal judge or the Department of Justice to “pre-clear” any changes to voting procedures in parts of the country that have a history of excluding voters on the basis of race.  White racists who try to exclude minorities as minorities have to justify their decision to do so, and their plans are frequently thwarted by the good folks in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.

If early reports from yesterday’s oral arguments in the Supreme Court are accurate, however, that may soon be changing.  Apparently, the five conservative justices are upset that the Voting Rights Act singles out a handful of largely southern states, while allowing states like Michigan and California to escape supervision under the pre-clearance provisions—so they look ready to strike the whole thing down.

If the problem is that southern states are being singled out when there are racists everywhere, how is that an argument for eliminating the VRA entirely?  If the conservative justices are so worried that northern racists are getting away with murder, then why not simply expand the pre-clearance requirement to all states?  I mean, their objective is to eliminate racially discriminatory election laws, right?

Right?

5 comments April 30th, 2009 at 10:56pm Posted by Eli

When The Nazis Do It, It’s Not Illegal

Wow, Condi sure had an eventful Monday at Stanford…

• Called al Qaeda a bigger threat than the Nazis because “Nazi Germany never attacked the homeland of the United States.”

• Said that “if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture”  In other words, when the president does it, it’s not illegal.

• Speaking of which, she apparently fingered Dubya for authorizing torture.

Awesome.  A few more visits back to Stanford and she’ll have a legacy to rival Dick Cheney’s, and her “husband” will be in prison.

1 comment April 30th, 2009 at 09:30pm Posted by Eli