For the Record

Answer: apparently not

Nice and concise from Nick Burbules:

Let's review. Bush steals one, probably both elections through vote fraud, but the Democrats won't make an issue of it because that would undermine faith in the democratic process. Bush fails to react to copious pre-9/11 warnings, before the attack, but the Democrats won't make an issue of it because that would undermine national unity at a time when we need to pull together. Bush makes a decision to go to war, then lies repeatedly to fool the country into supporting it, but the Democrats won't make an issue of it because that would undermine our troops and war effort. Secret Bush policies condone and cover-up prisoner torture, but the Democrats won't make an issue of it because they suspect that people basically don't mind torture (really) as long as the victims "deserve it" and it is in the service of "protecting" us. The Bush gang hands them the biggest gift imaginable in the Plame scandal, but the Democrats won't make an issue of it because they don't want the investigation to appear "partisan." Bush breaks the law, illegally eavesdrops on innocent Americans, then says openly that he thinks its just fine and plans to keep doing it, but the Democrats won't make an issue of it because they are afraid of appearing "soft" on national security. Bush appoints a Supreme Court nominee who is openly supportive of the worst of these Executive policies, and who is explicitly committed to overturning abortion rights, but the Democrats won't make an issue of it because they are afraid of a fight over the filibuster. Congressional Republicans have created the biggest corruption scandal in decades, but the Democrats won't make an issue of it because a couple of them might be caught up in the net. Do these people WANT to win?

A Republic, if you can keep it

According to Juan Cole, we've lost it:

Bush Spying on Americans

Wire tapping the telephones of American citizens without a court order is illegal.

They impeached Clinton for a minor dalliance in which he didn't even get to third base. But just taking the Constitution and pushing it through the shredder, why that is just fine and dandy.

He really does believe that it is just a piece of paper, and he is the Prince of the Realm who may do as he pleases, isn't he? 

The answer to Ben Franklin's comment about what sort of government the constitution enshrined--"A republic, if you can keep it"-- has been answered. We've lost it, folks. We've got George III in the White House. And, it is now often forgotten, that George was looney as the day is long, too.

' Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. '

That Bush was doing this wasn't even known.  How much more is not known?

It was a good run, this United States of America with its Constitution and its Bill of Rights. How sad that a gang of unscrupulous criminals has been allowed to subvert its basic values altogether.

Is there even a single one of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights that Bush and his henchmen have not by now abrogated by royal fiat?

And why? Because of a single attack by a few hijackers from a small terrorist organization? The thousands lost in the Revolutionary War did not deter the Founding Fathers from enshrining these rights in the Constitution! The fledgling American Republic was far more unstable and facing far more dangers when this document was passed into law than the unchallengeable hyperpower that now bestrides the globe as a behemoth.

Have we lost our minds?

Welcome to New America:

Bush's New America is an America that even in its darkest days, we'd never seen before. An America that gleefully thumbs its nose at its own treaties, like those designed to shield the planet from the death by a thousand storms due to global warning or the instant annilation of nuclear war. An America that lies about the reasons for commencement and continuation of a doctrine of pre-emptive warfare against other sovereign nations, rogue, threat or Mostly Harmless; ignores, excuses and essentially refuses to punish kidnapping, incommunicado indefinite imprisonment, sadistic and sexually charged torture and desecration of the dead undertaken in our country's name, all in defiance of the fundamental pillars of International Law.

New America requires a populace that is unclear and uncertain, insecure and afraid, ignorant and uninformed about everything that really matters to the integrity of the democracy itself.  So, George W. Bush's administration has shown us an America in which our votes are insecure and uncertain; where paid propaganda is sold to us as objective analysis, where data and records that our taxes paid for are scrubbed from public websites we also pay for; and where keeping secrets is the most important public relations goal.  This process started with baby steps, like eliminating the 50-year old tradition of having the American Bar Association prescreen the qualifications of federal judicial candidates. To larger things like preventing the government's own attorneys from expressing their legal opinions about matters directly under their jurisdiction. And now to a monstrous thing:  the willingness to admit that a single man's desire to spy on what he believes are his enemies is enough to set aside due process and the Constitution itself so long as the words "war on terror" are mentioned.

In New America, nothing -- other than money, power and those who own both - is sacred.  Those in control have proven that they are willing to let one of America's cultural crown jewels die an internationally-viewed and ignoble death if saving it takes a buck that Bush wants given to someone else.  They are willing to drag their feet on warming the cold, or feeding the hungry; sheltering the homeless or healing the sick; and they will never feel shame for systematically transfering the wealth and power which made America's middle class great from the hands of the working class and electorate to a select class: those who needed nothing from America they didn't already have (at least economically), but still want more anyway. 

All of it excused, because of the Executive Branch snatch and grab job commonly known as "Funding The War on Terror".

And what of those who do see what is happening and complain? In New America, those civil servants, decorated heroes or ordinary people who tried to tell the truth to the American people will be remembered as retaliated against, shoved out of their jobs, told that their replacement was already waiting in the wings, or simply called coward or traitor. While those civil servants whose only qualifications for their roles were an unswerving personal fealty to George Walker Bush and utter disdain for the rule of American and International law, the duty of government and the opinion of the world stage were lauded as doing a great job, given medals for failure, and offered the highest seats of power in the land despite their public advocacy for immoral and illegal policies or with total disregard for their complete lack of qualifications.

The official White House Response^TM was, is and shall ever be, thus: The President is right because he says so. We are wrong because he says so. Protecting America means giving up our freedoms, because Freedom is Hard Work. And, since it's HIS hard work, when it comes to our fundamental freedoms, HE gets to decide what is, or is not, American.

[...]

100 years from now, the world may also remember that 5 years ago tomorrow, President-Elect George W. Bush first uttered in public hearing his idea of a Better America:

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

In light of yesterday's news, and today's petulant admission, if George W. Bush has not yet earned the title of Dictator, then I don't know what a dictator is, anymore.

Do you?

Just do it

Go to Atrios or Crooks and Liars to see Cafferty summarizing the New Presidential Order:

Who cares about whether the Patriot Act gets renewed? Want to abuse our civil liberties? Just do it.

Who cares about the Geneva Conventions. Want to torture prisoners? Just do it.

Who cares about rules concerning the identity of CIA agents. Want to reveal the name of a covert operative? Just do it.

Who cares about whether the intelligence concerning WMDS is accurate. Want to invade Iraq? Just do it.

Who cares about qualifications to serve on the nation's highest court. Want to nominate a personal friend with no qualifications? Just do it.

And the latest outrage, which I read about in "The New York Times" this morning, who cares about needing a court order to eavesdrop on American citizens. Want to wiretap their phone conversations? Just do it. What a joke. A very cruel, very sad joke.

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald on how such unchecked executive tyranny comports with the founding principles of the U.S.

Emergency petition for Stanley Tookie Williams

From Phil Gasper in re the impending execution of Stanley Tookie Williams:

The Campaign to End the Death Penalty and other supporters of Stan are circulating a petition calling on the Justice Department to intervene and take immediate action against Stan's pending execution.  Activists will deliver the petition at an emergency demonstration for Stan at 4:30 pm at the U.S. Justice Department, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. If you would like to sign, email [email protected], or contact David Thurston at 646-382-4181--AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

UPDATE: Insatiable bloodlust against African-American men, in particular, who accounted for almost 1/3 of executions in 2004 though they account for just 1/16 of the population, ruled.  RIP:

"I always ask the question: Can a black man in America receive justice? I can say to you or anybody else that the answer is absolutely no. There’s a myriad of things that bring me to this conclusion — prosecutorial misconduct, the biased selection of juries, the issues of informants, the exclusion of exculpatory evidence, illegal interrogation of witnesses. It’s commonplace."

Notwithstanding the ridiculous headline

this is great news:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 - In a major defeat for law enforcement officials, a jury in Florida failed to return guilty verdicts Tuesday on any of 51 criminal counts against a former Florida professor and three co-defendants accused of operating a North American front for Palestinian terrorists.

The former professor, Sami al-Arian, a fiery advocate for Palestinian causes who became a lightning rod for criticism nationwide over his vocal anti-Israeli stances, was found not guilty on eight criminal counts related to terrorist support, perjury and immigration violations.

[...]

"This was a very important case for us in that it tested both the Patriot Act and the right to political activity," Mr. Bedier said. "The jury is sending a statement that even in post-9/11 America, the justice system works, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and political association - while it may be unpopular to associate oneself with controversial views - is still not illegal in this country."

A Legal Lynching: the case of Stanley Tookie Williams

Please read the letter from Phil Gasper, Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame de Namur, concerning the scheduled execution of Stanley Tookie Williams.  Various facts stated by Gasper to the effect that Williams was unjustly framed are confirmed in this LA Times  article.   Much more info about the racist and classist application of the death penalty can be found here.

Dear Friends:

As you may know, Stanley Tookie Williams is scheduled to be executed by the State of California on December 13. Stan was the co-founder of the Crips street gang in Los Angeles in 1971. In 1981 he was convicted of four murders, which he has always maintained he did not commit. There was no physical evidence connecting him to the crimes and he was convicted on the basis of the unreliable testimony of a jailhouse informant who did a deal with the prosecutor. The trial itself was thoroughly racist. All African-Americans were removed from the jury pool and in his summation the prosecutor used a jungle metaphor to describe Stan (who is Black).

During his years in prison, Stan underwent a remarkable transformation. After several years in solitary confinement, he publicly renounced his gang connections and apologized for the pain and harm that his past actions had caused. Since that time, he has dedicated himself to combating the influence of street gangs and doing whatever he can to end gang violence. Since the mid-1990s he has published a series of award-winning books for children, which de-romanticize gangs, crime and prison. The books have been used successfully in schools around the US and in other parts of the world. His "Peace Protocol" has been used to negotiate gang truces in several cities. He has received tens of thousands of emails from young people thanking him for changing their lives.

As a result of his extraordinary work, Stan was nominated for the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize by a group of Swiss parliamentarians, after his anti-gang message helped to defuse a violent gang conflict in that country. I have re-nominated him for the Peace Prize four times since then.

Barring an unlikely last minute intervention by the courts, the only way Stan's life can be saved is if Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger grants him clemency. There is a growing international campaign to demand that Stan's execution be stopped and, as part of that, I will be nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize again at the beginning of next month. The more people who co-sponsor the nomination, the more impact it will have.

Among those who are permitted to make Peace Prize nominations are "University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes." If you fall into one of these categories and are willing to cosponsor the nomination, please send me your details (name, title, institution, address) as soon as possible [see email below]. And please pass this message on to anyone else who might be willing to cosponsor.

Thanks for your support.

Phil Gasper
Professor of Philosophy
Notre Dame de Namur University
Belmont, CA 94002
[email protected]

Miers as insurance for the Bush crime family

The GOP and its wingnut base seem pretty pissed off about Miers. What could Bush have been thinking? My thought is that Poppy and Bar overruled the Roves and Norquists on this one. Miers is an especially apposite nomination for SCOTUS because of what the nomination does for the Bush crime family, even if it's not so great for the GOP.

The central interest of the Bush dynasty is in maintaining its own power. It's nice to help the GOP, or the religious right, as an instrument to this, but that has no intrinsic importance.

Seen this way, the natural supposition is that the calculation worked out like this: "the GOP has a bunch of legal problems coming down the pipe, who knows what will happen there; maybe riling up the base with a wingnut appointment followed by a big filibuster battle with the Senate Dems would be good for the GOP, maybe it would distract the GOP's attention from  its coming legal battles, who knows.

"But even better than helping the GOP is helping ourselves. We'll be out of the White House in a couple of years, and the country's probably had too much of Bushes for the time being to elect Jeb in '08. (And by '12, the wingnut base will have forgotten all about the Miers betrayal.) In the interim, what could be better than having a lackey on the Supreme Court? Both because strings can be pulled to reward or punish as appropriate (or in case we get in legal troubles of our own like back in '00), and because such an act of generosity would further bind our present lackeys to us at this time when it looks like we might be losing control. And who wants someone who might think to themself 'hey, I'm on the SCOTUS, what do I need to obey those asshole Bushes for anymore?' A wingnut has opinions of their own and their own constituency to serve; not one of our lackeys."

W fucked up and discredited the Bushes for the time being. Miers is the ultimate insurance policy against the right wing and the GOP machine forcing them out.

Harriet Miers

Supreme kiss-ass.  More links here and some good discussion here.

Update: Miers' natural successor candidate.

Don't get your hopes up

about what long-term effects exposure and prosecution of Republican corruption will have.  Billmon tells a cautionary tale:

[If the feds get serious about cracking down, then] it is at least theoretically possible that the machine will be blown apart, ushering in a major upheaval in American politics.

There are many precedents for this -- but the one I've been thinking about lately is Italian, not American. In the early 1990s, a group of magistrates (a position combining some of the functions of both prosecutors and judges) in Milan began digging into the twin dung heaps of criminality that were the Italian political system and the Italian corporate establishment. They, and their campaign, quickly became known as the "Clean Hands," both because of their reputation for incorruptibility and their independence from the patronage machines of the ruling political parties.

In the end, the investigations put a wrecking ball to the existing political order. The Christian Democratic Party -- the leading partner in nearly all of Italy's revolving door governments since World War II -- was destroyed, as was the almost equally corrupt Socialist Party. Leading politicians were sent to jail or hounded into exile. Corrupt corporate bribemasters also went to prison. For a time, the magistrates became folk heros -- Italy's answer to Eliott Ness and the Untouchables.

If that's all there was to the story, the Tangentopoli scandals might be an encouraging example of how tough, aggressive law enforcement can break an entrenched political kleptocracy. Unfortunately, it's not the whole story, and the aftermath of Clean Hands campaign is a cautionary lesson about the limits of reform in a political system dominated by big money, big media and a cynical, jaded electorate easily manipulated by the tools of modern mass propaganda.

Subsequent events also demonstrated the immense challenges facing a center-left coalition hemmed in by the demands of fiscal orthodoxy, an electorate that wants both big government and low taxes, and an increasingly conservative brand of populism based on regional antagonisms and hostility to immigrants. In the end, instead of clearing a path for the left to dominate Italian politics as the Christian Democrats once did, the Clean Hands era largely strengthened the parties of the extreme right, including the direct lineal descendents of Mussolini's Fascists.

Heads they win, tails we lose.  That's the way the power bounces.

Iraqi women sold down the river

to a future of violent intimidation, gender enslavement, second-class citizenship, and ignorance, with the help of the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq:

"Friday's attack in Mosul came as Iraqi leaders in Baghdad reached tentative agreement on the role of Islam in the state, Iraqi leaders said. Under the deal, the constitution would designate Islam as "a main source of legislation," and would prohibit the passing of any legislation that contradicted Islam's "fixed principles."

Iraqi leaders said they had also reached a tentative agreement to relegate marriage and family matters to adjudication by clerics, an arrangement opposed by secular leaders and women's groups here, Iraqi leaders said.

The tentative agreements on Islam were brokered by the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, according to a Kurdish negotiator who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the delicacy of the talks. The Kurdish leader said that in both cases, Mr. Khalilzad had sided with Shiite leaders in backing a more expansive role for Islam. That, the Kurd said, angered many of the secular-minded Iraqis who have been fighting for a stricter separation between Islam and the state.

According to the Kurdish leader, the secular Iraqis had pushed for language that would have narrowed the circumstances under which legislation would be deemed to be in conflict with Islam. And, according to the Kurd, the secular Iraqis had wanted marriage and family disputes to be adjudicated by civil courts, not by clerics.

"Your American ambassador is giving an Islamic character to the state," the Kurdish leader said. "You spent all this money and all this blood to bring an Islamic republic here."

"We are very worried," he  said."

And so should you be.  As Digby notes:

"I got an e-mail from someone I respect asking me why I made such a big deal out of women's rights being denied when there are so many other freedoms at stake. It's a legitimate question I suppose, but I think the question answers itself. The fact is that under Saddam, in their everyday lives, one half of the population had more real, tangible freedom than they have now and that they will have under some form of Shar'ia. The sheer numbers of people whose freedom are affected make it the most glaring and tragic symbol of our failed "noble cause."

Iraqi women have enjoyed secular, western-style equality for more than 40 years. Most females have no memory of living any other way. In order to meet an arbitrary deadline for domestic political reasons, we have capitulated to theocrats on the single most important constitutional issue facing the average Iraqi woman --- which means that we have now officially failed more than half of the Iraqis we supposedly came to help. We have "liberated" millions of people from rights they have had all their lives."

So much for "freeing the Iraqis".